Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Wednesday 12 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Ethiopia

Mr. Laurence Robertson: If she will make a statement on her policy towards development aid to Ethiopia. [127737]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Our current bilateral programme in Ethiopia is small, our work on food security is on-going and, so far this year, we have contributed £9 million for food aid directly and another £14 million through the EC. The recent signature by Ethiopia and Eritrea of a cessation of hostilities agreement is a welcome and positive development. We are encouraging the international financial institutions and the European Union to re-engage as the peace process unfolds and we will, over the coming months, review our bilateral programme.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. She is right to bear in mind the conflict that took place between the two countries. However, it is urgent to renew development aid, because the last thing that we want three, four or five years down the line is a repeat of the situation that we have just seen in Ethiopia. Will she therefore think very carefully about how she can speed up the development aid that that country so desperately needs?

Clare Short: I applaud the hon. Gentleman's objective, but we have to make a distinction. Humanitarian aid and food aid go to anyone regardless, and we do not stop them because of war—people have to eat. However, development aid must not support countries arming themselves and going to war, so we have to nuance that. Of course, we want to reinforce peace and get on with development. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea are desperately

poor countries, and the people there are subject to hunger because they are so poor. We shall do all that we can to help development and to maintain the peace.

Aid Budget Reform

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions she has had with EU officials on reform of the aid budget. [127738]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend and I have frequent exchanges with Commissioners Nielson and Patten about reform of the European Commission aid budget. We are working for the implementation of our strategy, a copy of which I have here and a copy of which is in the Library of the House. We are constantly pressing the Commission and other EU member states to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of EC development assistance.

Mr. Swayne: Given the description of the rotten heart of Europe that the Secretary of State gave to the Select Committee on International Development yesterday, what prospect is there of the United Kingdom regaining control of the budget so that it might be deployed according to our own exemplary standards?

Mr. Foulkes: We have a much better prospect of that with the Labour party in power than we would have if the Conservative party were in power. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 1992, his Government renegotiated the financial perspectives, and the amount of Britain's aid budget that we contributed to Europe went up from 20 to 30 per cent. When we negotiated the financial perspectives last year, we kept the figure constant. With an increasing budget for development, that means that we have, unlike the previous Government, more money to spend on bilateral assistance. The percentage spent on bilateral assistance will be increasing.

Mr. David Stewart: What steps can the Secretary of State take to refocus EU aid spending towards poorer countries?

Mr. Foulkes: That is exactly what we are discussing with the Commissioners. In 1987, about 75 per cent. of European Community aid was spent on the poorest countries of the world, but 10 years later the figure was just over 50 per cent. That is not good enough and we argue that there has to be a switch towards a poverty-focused programme. At last, the European Commission has published a draft policy statement that is moving in that direction. Commissioner Nielson strongly supports that, and we are backing him 100 per cent.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The House does not need a history lesson from the Minister. We need something specific in terms of action to make the situation better. Will he confirm that the Government will table paving reforms at the current intergovernmental conference so that a mechanism is put in place to enable member states who choose to do so to take urgent and immediate action to spend most of their aid budgets bilaterally if the Patten reforms do not prove to be a


success within the next 12 months? Is that not a proper response to the EU aid fiasco? We want not empty words but positive, constructive and common-sense action.

Mr. Foulkes: I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but I think that the hon. Gentleman does need a history lesson. He has the barefaced cheek to come here to try to lecture us. As I pointed out in reply to the main question, it was under his Government that the percentage of money spent in Europe increased substantially and yet no action was taken to make that spending more effective. We have taken action to make the spending more effective. We have produced a strategy paper and we are working to get it implemented. The number of Commissioners dealing with development assistance has been reduced from five to two; we have renegotiated the Lomé convention; and we have financial perspectives that do not increase development assistance. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman took a history lesson and learned from us.

Mr. Streeter: I assume that that was a very long no to my specific question. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I that if steps are not taken at this year's IGC to effect radical surgery of the EU aid budget, no action will be possible for several years—unless he knows the date of the next IGC, which I know he does not—during which the world's poorest countries will continue to be cheated out of vital help and support by bungling Brussels bureaucrats. If they do not seize this heaven-sent opportunity to implement a framework for a better aid policy, will it not be just another example of this Government being long on rhetoric and short on delivery?

Mr. Foulkes: This is barefaced cheek from the Opposition; what is more, it is carefully rehearsed barefaced cheek. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported did absolutely nothing to reform the European Community development programme. In fact, they increased it by 50 per cent. We are moving in the right direction: there is a poverty focus and an agreement to streamline the programme and delegate it to the countries concerned. We are moving in the right direction, and under this Government we will continue to do so.

Beijing Plus 5 Review

Ms Chris McCafferty: If she will make a statement on the final report of the Beijing plus 5 review. [127739]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The principles laid down at Beijing were reaffirmed despite the efforts of some hard-line states to reverse previous gains. The report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women—UNIFEM—on progress worldwide since Beijing will be placed in the Library.

Ms McCafferty: Does my hon. Friend agree that 70 per cent. of the world's poorest people are women? Is he aware that, next week, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities will launch a special report to mark world population day that will highlight the fact that reproductive health and rights are human rights? Will he do everything possible to ensure that the sexual health and

reproductive rights of adolescents and women are regarded as human rights and are part of the Government's international development policy?

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I can reassure her that the gains made in Cairo were successfully defended in Beijing, despite the persistent efforts of hard-line states to undermine them. We would like much more explicit commitments to women's sexual rights, particularly the right to control their own sex lives, but a number of conservative countries are still blocking that.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Does the Minister agree that many of the world's conflicts occur in some of the world's poorest countries and that often many of the non-combatants affected are women and children? Does he also agree that those women often suffer sexual violence as well as the violence of the wider war? What measures is his Department taking to ensure that those women's rights and children's rights will be central to its emergency aid for such conflicts?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has pinpointed something that we have said on several occasions during Question Time: poverty is exacerbated by conflict. It is difficult for us to implement programmes to help the poorest people, particularly women and children, during conflict.
The question of violence against women was discussed at Beijing plus 5 and real gains were made. So-called honour killings, acid attacks, marital rape and forced marriage were condemned and recognised for the first time as a cause of concern. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is some progress.

Mr. John Bercow: Of the 12 specific promises agreed in Beijing, how many has the United Kingdom fulfilled?

Mr. Foulkes: We have made substantial progress on the promises that were made. If I had the time, I would spell out each of them one by one. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, at Beijing plus 5, there was no retreat from previous agreements on abortion; there were many strong references to the threat to women posed by HIV; the key role of the women's movement in non-governmental organisations was recognised and the importance of women's rights at work is underlined in the report; the need fully to extend inheritance and property rights to women was accepted; and, as I said earlier, real gains were made in relation to violence against women. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is substantial progress.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Chinese about the spread of HIV-AIDS from Burma? I should like to congratulate the Department on its excellent publication on that country, which came out yesterday.

Mr. Foulkes: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I am pleased to tell him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to visit the border area to look at the project that he identified. I am sure that he agrees that that will be a great step forward.

China Western Poverty Reduction Project

Mr. Norman Baker: What her policy is in respect of the China western poverty reduction project. [127740]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Britain supported the China western poverty reduction project at the World Bank board meeting in June 1999 because it is designed to bring significant benefits to 1.7 million of the poorest people in China. The hons. Gentleman will know that there was a campaign against the project. We therefore scrutinised it carefully and were convinced that, basically, it was beneficial. We also supported the board's conclusion that no funds should be disbursed on the Qinghai component of the project until an independent inspection panel had conducted an investigation, and it had been subject to further environmental and social assessments.
The report by the independent inspection panel, and the bank management's response to it, will be discussed at a World Bank board meeting on 6 July.

Mr. Baker: I am interested to know what the Secretary of State's position will be on 6 July—that is a key question. Is the Secretary of State aware that the World Bank inspection panel found seven major violations of World Bank policy in that particular project, including a lack of proper consultation, inadequate environmental assessment and a climate of fear in the area in question? With even the US opposed to the project, will she consider the matter carefully and conclude that it is not in the UK Government's interest, and certainly not in the Tibetan interest, to support this project?

Clare Short: We have not yet decided exactly what position we will take at the board meeting. There will be a discussion but not a final decision on 6 July. We are trying to maintain the project and benefits to some of the poorest people in China, some of whom have an annual income of only £23 a year. They live in remote villages for and represent four different ethnic minorities. We want to preserve a good project, but make sure that there is proper protection. We agree with a lot of criticisms in the panel report and, indeed, expressed some of those criticisms at the last meeting. We want to secure all those provisions, but also the project—that is our intention.

Mr. George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many in the House welcome the Government's priority on the alleviation of poverty? Does she also accept that, no matter how desirable and well intentioned they are, schemes must comply with the regulations laid down by the World Bank? Given that the independent panel review found that seven out of l0 of the World Bank regulations have been violated, will my right hon. Friend make it as clear as possible that until the Government are satisfied that all those regulations have been complied with, they will not support the scheme?

Clare Short: I am very well aware that people are concerned about the situation in Tibet. I share the concern of those who have opposed this project from the start. My duty is to try to use UK influence to protect the interests of very poor people in China and make sure that that the

project is good, but not to be swayed by a strong international campaign. I promise the House that I shall try to do that.

Mr. Tim Loughton: It is very alarming that the Secretary of State will not have made a decision when the meeting takes place tomorrow. Why, when the vote was taken, was it not supported by the United States, Canada, France and Australia, although Britain was for it? When will we see some vestiges of an ethical policy in our dealings with China in a policy that purely legitimises Chinese population transfer and all its obscene implications? The Government are kowtowing to the Chinese again. When will they stop?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is deeply misinformed. China is opening up to the world. Its decision to join the World Trade Organisation is of crucial importance to humanity and the people of China, and will ensure that there is less oppression in China. China's record in reducing poverty in recent years has been very good, but in the most remote and the western parts of the country some of the poorest people live in some of the most inaccessible places. They have human rights to development, to education and to a decent livelihood. We will do all in our power to ensure that all human rights, including those of the poor, are protected everywhere, and that is what we are doing in China.

Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a principal thrust of the DFID's programme in China thus far has been the development of judicial and civic structures to aid social development and, in particular, the development of human rights? Against that background, is it not right that when the Chinese have decided to switch their attention from the coastal provinces to the poorer inland provinces, we should do our part to assist that project, provided that we can get the assurances that we seek?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. We have been conducting judicial training, and helping not only in state enterprise reform but with access to education, health care and water in remote provinces with some of the poorest ethnic minorities. I am sure that the House would agree that that is the right thing to do.

Primary Education

Mr. Tom Brake: If she will make a statement on progress towards the global provision of primary education by 2015. [127741]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since the publication of our White Paper, we have worked hard to mobilise the international community to meet the target of universal primary education by 2015. We welcome the strong political commitment at the world education forum in Dakar to achieve universal primary education by 2015 and significantly to enhance investment in primary education.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Does she accept that, regrettably, gender equity in primary and secondary education is unlikely to be


reached by 2005? What new targets will the Government argue for? Can she reassure the House that the matter will be discussed at the Okinawa summit?

Clare Short: Certainly, all the international development targets will be discussed at Okinawa for the first time, and one of them is progress on gender equity in education. In the poorest countries, girls tend to be excluded from school, and educating girls is profoundly developmental for a country. I am not willing to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to write off significant progress by 2005, because we are now making progress on the objective. Let us drive that forward. If we have not achieved the objective in all countries in 2005, we can reassess the matter, but let us not give in now; let us make further progress. I promise the hon. Gentleman that the subject will be discussed at Okinawa.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the target is reached, it will be an enormous step forward because never in human history has it been achieved? Being able to read and write, and to answer back, will make an enormous difference to the ability of people worldwide to cope with all that the world can throw at them.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. There are 900 million adults in the world who are illiterate. We now have an international commitment to ensure that all children in the world get primary education, and widespread recognition that it is the most powerful development intervention that any country can have. Including girls in education, in particular, transforms a country as the girls grow up and increases the likelihood that their children will survive.
I am certain that we will make major progress by 2015. We might not achieve the target in every country, and we are less likely to achieve it in war-torn countries, but massive progress is possible. We are the first generation that can look to the elimination of fundamental illiteracy from the world. We can achieve that if we are serious.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Uncharacteristically, I agree with the Secretary of State in that I support the objective of providing universal primary education by 2015. Does she agree that no money earmarked for development should be wasted on bureaucracy and that every penny should be focused on the front line? Why then, since she took office, has she increased her staff by 321, increased her administration costs by £20 million and doubled her Department's publications, including bumf such as vanity publications that cost more than £400,000—enough to double the basic education programmes in Colombia, Mozambique and Nepal? Is it not about time that she spent a little more on the education of children in developing countries and a little less on publicising her own Department?

Clare Short: The hon. Lady is characteristically wrong, misinformed, inaccurate and not attached to the truth. The Department's spending has grown by £1 billion under this Government, but the budgets shrank and shrank under the administration supervised by the Government of which she

was a member. Slightly more staff are needed to have a bigger programme, but our staffing is small. There has not been a big increase in administration costs, but we have published the details of all our strategies and programmes—that is freedom of information that was hidden by the previous Government. Publication costs money, but it allows people in developing countries to know about the programmes that are for their benefit. The hon. Lady is misinformed as ever.

Chad-Cameroon Oil Pipeline

Mr. David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project. [127742]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The World Bank is supporting Chad and Cameroon to build a pipeline to take Chad's oil to the Atlantic coast. Chad and Cameroon are both very poor countries. We believe that the World Bank's involvement in the project will help to ensure that measures will be taken to protect the environment and that the benefits of the development will reach the poor.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that, in the long-term, it is far less likely that the exploitation of fossil fuels will bring prosperity to countries such as Chad and Cameroon, and that the World Bank should consider more seriously the development of renewable energy, the potential for which those countries have in abundance? Can she assure the House that she will use her influence at the board of the World Bank to give greater attention to renewable energy projects in future?

Clare Short: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I agree that renewable energy—solar energy—is very important for the future of humanity and will bring benefits to countries with lots of sun. Chad is one of the poorest countries in the world, but it has substantial oil reserves. Of course Chad must be allowed to exploit those oil reserves, and the World Bank's involvement will ensure that that is done responsibly and that the poor benefit from that. That must be right. I support renewable energy, but Chad has a right to exploit its oil.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what contribution the Prime Minister's initiative group at the Department for International Development makes to the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project? [Interruption.]

Clare Short: I did not fully hear the hon. Gentleman; there is an awful lot of noise in the Chamber, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Conversations are much too noisy. The House must come to order. I cannot hear, neither can Ministers. Secretary of State, did you hear the question correctly? Will the hon. Gentleman repeat the question? [Interruption.] Order. We cannot hear. Repeat the question.

Mr. Wells: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what contribution the Prime Minister's initiative group at the Department for International Development makes to the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project?

Clare Short: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative involves working with the private sector to use information technology in various countries, especially those in Africa, to improve teacher education to meet our primary education objective and to ensure that an educated group of people has access to the new technologies. It is too soon to say whether Chad will benefit, but we are currently reviewing whether we can drive that forward and which countries will benefit. I am very hopeful that Rwanda will benefit, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure at that.

Emergency Relief

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What plans she has for setting up permanent stand-by arrangements for emergency relief. [127743]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): A mechanism for international emergency relief already exists under the co-ordination of the United Nations. We are supporting the strengthening of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Our strategy paper on that work is available in the Library. The emergency relief operations of my Department are widely recognised as one of the most effective in the international system. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Before I call Mr. Bruce, I remind hon. Members that I have asked them to cease noisy conversations. I cannot hear, neither can the Secretary of State. Will hon. Members have quiet conversations, if they have any at all? They are here to listen to questions and answers, not to have conversations among themselves.

Mr. Bruce: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but she will be aware that, during the Mozambique crisis, I contacted her office on behalf of helicopter companies in Aberdeen. Her staff gave a quick and efficient response. I have no complaints about that, but the helicopter companies said that their response could have been greater if there were stand-by arrangements between the Government and private companies, such as themselves, for emergency provision. Is there any possibility that that could be further explored so that we can get the right people, with the right equipment, in the right place and, I entirely accept, at the right price?

Clare Short: We have stand-by arrangements with health professionals, logisticians, former military people, firefighters and all sorts of people who, overnight, will drop everything to go out to an emergency. Britain should be very proud of them. It is not wise to send helicopters from northern Europe to southern Africa if they can be hired in southern Africa. That is what we did, because it was cheaper and quicker. It was the right thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Kali Mountford: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I will have further such meetings later today.
Today marks the centenary of the passage of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, which established a unique and strong relationship between our countries. I am delighted that we will mark that occasion tomorrow. It testifies to the remarkable and close bonds between our two great countries.

Kali Mountford: Does my right hon. Friend recall meeting GPs from the primary care group in my constituency last week? Was he impressed, as I was, by their great success and the real changes that they are now able to achieve for patients as they move towards trust status? Is not the last thing that GPs and their patients need a return to the divisive two-tier system that we inherited from the Tories?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The primary care groups have replaced the vastly discredited two-tier system, but more than that, as a result of the additional money that we are able to get into the health service, both primary care services and acute hospital services will be increased. We now know from the Conservative party that it would take £1 billion out of the national health service. That is why every time the issue turns to substance and policy, the Conservatives have nothing to say.

Mr. William Hague: I join the Prime Minister in his tribute to Australia and ask him to join me in welcoming to the Palace of Westminster five Australian Prime Ministers, including the current Prime Minister, Mr. Howard. On the centenary of the passing of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, will he join me in celebrating the close links between Britain and Australia and the sacrifice made by the people of Australia in upholding freedom and democracy in two world wars? Does he share the hope that the ties between our two great countries will be as strong throughout the next hundred years as they have been over the past hundred?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to join in those sentiments. At my meeting with the Australian Prime Minister yesterday, we agreed that we should establish here a proper and fitting war memorial to those American service men and women who lost their lives—[HON. MEMBERS: "Australian!"] Forgive me: Australian service men and women. [Interruption.] Forgive me. Well, there were many good allies in those conflicts.
The important thing at this time, when we look ahead at the next hundred years, is to remember just how much sacrifice was made by those Australians who gave their


lives to defend the whole of the civilised world from fascism and dictatorship. We will be delighted to honour them here in this country.

Mr. Hague: Australians are straightforward people, so let me ask the Prime Minister a straightforward question. Does he remember announcing a new Government policy last Friday, to a chorus of derision—something that he must be getting used to these days? In what was billed as a major announcement, he said that drunken and violent thugs would be picked up by the police, taken to a cashpoint and asked to pay an on-the-spot fine. Can he tell the House which person in the Government came up with that brilliant idea?

The Prime Minister: The essence of the proposal of course is that—[Interruption.] The essence of the proposal is that there should be summary justice for disorderly conduct and that there should be—[Interruption.] I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman; he should just listen. There should be on-the-spot fines for those people who engage in disorderly conduct. It is correct that it may be better to do that by fixed penalty notice, but summary justice, on the spot, is the essence of the proposal. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, he will say whether, if we introduce the proposal for summary fixed penalty notices, he will support it.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Hague: If there were a fixed penalty notice for evading the question, the right hon. Gentleman would be bankrupt by now. The shadow Home Secretary has said that we are happy to look at the principle of using more fixed penalty notices, but what we want to know about is last Friday's announcement, copiously leaked to the press as usual, of
Blair's shock proposal to stop street violence—
which was all about people being taken to a cashpoint and given an on-the-spot fine.
Whose idea was this? It could not have been the Home Office civil servants', because they said that they knew nothing about it. It could not have been the Home Office Ministers', because they called it an "ill judged metaphor". It could not have been the police's idea, because they said it was "ludicrous" and "unworkable". Could it have been anyone in the Labour party? Hands up anyone who thought of it. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister is on his own, again. Who in the Government came up with the obviously fatuous idea of getting drunken criminals to form orderly queues at cashpoints around the country?

The Prime Minister: On-the-spot fines—[Interruption.] Let us get the right hon. Gentleman off what he likes to talk about, and get him on to the substance. Was he saying a moment or two ago that if we introduce fixed penalty notices on the spot for disorderly conduct, he will support that?

Mr. Hague: Actually, I was asking the Prime Minister a question, to which he does not give the answer. I am happy to give the answer, as I have about fixed penalty notices. I will be happy to give the answers about Government policy in the future, which he will not give

at the Dispatch Box today. The truth is that the proposal was yet another gimmick from a Government of gimmicks.
Three years ago, the Prime Minister announced, with another fanfare, the introduction of child curfew orders as another way in which Labour would fight youth crime. Will he tell the House, three years on, how many child curfew orders have been implemented?

The Prime Minister: The child curfew orders and the anti-social behaviour orders were part of a Government strategy to deal with unruly behaviour. They are being used, and we want to see them being used more. However, I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he will support on-the-spot fines. [Interruption.] The issue for people out there, when there are people drunk in the street, kicking in their gates, and engaging in drunken disorderly conduct, is whether the police will be given the powers that they need.
Yesterday we proposed measures on football hooliganism. Let me again challenge the right hon. Gentleman. Today the House of Lords Conservative party said that it would not support those measures. Will he or will he not back us on disorderly conduct and football hooligans—yes or no?

Mr. Hague: We called for the Prime Minister to deal with football hooliganism two years ago. Just because he did nothing and has mismanaged the parliamentary timetable does not mean that he can get legislation through in a matter of hours.
What is the answer to the question that we asked the Prime Minister? It is a nice, easy number. It is probably in his folder, if he had a PIN number to get to it. It is a nice, easy number, the number of child curfew orders implemented: zero. Was that what the right hon. Gentleman meant by zero tolerance when he talked about it at the last election? It is yet another gimmick. With violent crime rising—and his gimmicks have done nothing to address it—would it not be a good idea to make violent criminals serve their sentences? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give the House the figure for the number of people convicted of grievous bodily harm and released early, before their normal parole date, by the Home Secretary?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, that proposal was supported by his party. On football hooliganism, we now know today—[Interruption.] The Tories do not like to talk about the substance of the policy. On football hooliganism, we now know today that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to support the measures going through the House of Lords. Let me tell the House also that we have introduced a measure whereby, for breaches of community service orders, benefit is lost. The Opposition oppose that as well. They also oppose the fines on illegal trafficking in illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. As for their record on crime, many people in the country remember that it was under the Conservatives that crime doubled. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously on crime, let him stand at this Dispatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Maybe he should give us a few answers to some


questions. Let him stand there now and tell us whether he will back these measures on crime, or whether he will carry on talking about them but doing nothing.

Mr. Hague: I will stand at the right hon. Gentleman's Dispatch Box and be taken seriously on crime, which he never will. We will support tougher measures on crime going through the House, but we will subject them to proper parliamentary scrutiny, which he has never favoured. The number of people—a figure which, again, he has not given—released early who have committed grievous bodily harm is now 1,654, many of whom have offended again. Three years into the Government—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I hear what the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) is calling out. I shall have to move him out of the Chamber if he continues.

Mr. Hague: Three years into the Government, is it not the truth that they are failing to deal with the real issues, such as crime, because they are so busy with leak and counter-leak, spin and counter-spin, and doing each other down in the press. Is not the fact that the Prime Minister spends his time clutching for another empty headline with a cashpoint announcement instead of getting a grip on his divided and shambolic Government a sure sign of weakness and failure of leadership?

The Prime Minister: Let us deal with "spin rather than substance". I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not raise today the record number of jobs created by inward investment in this country; the 1 million extra jobs since the election—not spin, substance; the new hospital building programme—not spin, substance; the building work for up to 11,000 schools—not spin, but substance; today's £1 billion programme for science—not spin, but substance; the minimum wage; paid holidays; the right to union representation; the new deal; the working families tax credit—all substance. The truth is, when the debate turns to policy, we will see who is standing.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Resign.

Madam Speaker: Order. Any more of that and the hon. Gentleman will be out.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: One of the things that I hope that my right hon. Friend will do today is have a look at the petition with 70,000 signatures gathered in Glasgow in support of Govan shipyard. There are voices this morning saying that the future for our yard is bleak. Does my right hon. Friend have any encouraging things to say to the men and women in that yard who have campaigned so hard and so long to save its future?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will recognise that the Ministry of Defence receives the bids tomorrow and will consider them carefully. Other United Kingdom warship orders are coming up, and Scotland can expect to benefit from them, too. For example, it is probable that a type 45 destroyer, first of class, will be assembled and launched on the Clyde. In addition, the Government have

spent about £500 million on defence equipment from contractors based in Scotland. We must obviously make decisions in the best interests of our shipbuilding industry, but we are well aware of the anxieties of those who work in the Govan yard.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: While I acknowledge the welcome level of investment that has been recorded today, what does the Prime Minister make of the opinion that was expressed to him and the Foreign Office by our ambassador in Japan? The ambassador said that there is a perception among Japanese business men that, unless this country gets firmly on track for membership of the euro, additional future investment will entail unnecessary costs and doubts. Does the Prime Minister agree with his ambassador's analysis?

The Prime Minister: Before I answer that question, I shall refer to a question that the right hon. Gentleman asked last week and to which I promised an answer. He asked whether the health action zone money had been cut. I have examined the matter carefully. Five different streams of money go to health action zones. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that one had been reduced. However, the other four have been substantially increased, and there will be an overall increase of 37 per cent. in health action zone funding.
On inward investment, it is extremely important to hold to the policy that we have set out. It is, in principle, for Britain to be part of a successful single currency, while recognising that, in practice, the economic conditions must be fulfilled. That remains our policy. To rule out the euro altogether would be absolutely disastrous for British jobs and inward investment, leading to an immediate loss of jobs and investment. That is why Conservative policy is the surest way I know to lose jobs.

Mr. Kennedy: On health action zones, the Prime Minister is right about the 37 per cent., but the point of last week's question was that the 37 per cent. increase is a decrease when compared with what the Treasury proposed initially. It will still result in cuts. That is the heart of the matter.
On the euro, Richard Branson wrote this morning:
outside the Euro…we will be much poorer both as a nation and as individuals.
Did the Prime Minister notice that? Does he disagree with Mr. Branson as well as his ambassador in Japan? Is he not in danger of allowing his "prepare and decide" policy to slip into the "wait and see" policy that had such disastrous consequences for his predecessor?

The Prime Minister: No, because it is a "prepare and decide" policy. Depending on the economic conditions, membership of a successful single currency would be good for British jobs, mortgages and industry. However, membership must depend on the economic tests for the simple reason that if the conditions were not met, membership would not have the beneficial impact that we have discussed. The majority of those who are in favour of our joining the euro in principle recognise that joining now would not be right. It is therefore important to keep to the "prepare and decide" policy, the "in principle" commitment and the tests. We must do that because it is


best for British people and British industry. Adopting the crazy policy of the Conservative party would prove the fastest way of removing inward investment from this country.

Mr. David Kidney: Now that the Home Office accepts that it costs more to police rural areas, can my right hon. Friend assure the residents of rural Staffordshire that Staffordshire police will get more money? Does my right hon. Friend agree that wherever people live in Britain, they should be entitled to a police service that is consistently good?

The Prime Minister: I note that my hon. Friend's force will get an additional 83 officers from the 5,000 extra national recruits in the next two years. I also note that recorded crime has fallen in my hon. Friend's area by 3.3 per cent. The comprehensive spending review is coming up shortly. The extra resources that we are able to invest in the police show the importance that the Government attach to investing in our essential public services—schools, hospitals, law and order and transport. All those investments would be put at risk by the Conservative party's policy, which would mean that, whatever the economic circumstances, tax cuts always come first. When we undertake the comprehensive spending review, the choice will be simple: it will be between investment in the future and a stable economy on one side and an unstable economy and cuts in investment on the other.

Mr. William Thompson: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the illegal arms in the Provisional IRA dumps recently inspected by the two international inspectors are now secure and unavailable for use? When will they be put beyond use on a permanent basis, as required by statute, and when will the arrangements be made to deal with the remaining dumps?

The Prime Minister: It is important that this was a confidence-building measure. It is not the end of the decommissioning process, as I said on the day the measure was announced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have a chance in Northern Ireland, with an inclusive Executive now and with a Government who are able to represent all parts of the community, to take the process forward. We know that the confidence-building measure is not the full decommissioning that we need. However, it is a significant step along the way to a more peaceful future for people in Northern Ireland. I believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and in the whole of the United Kingdom will welcome it.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced an allocation of £658,000 for the Royal Bolton hospital to build a dedicated eye operating theatre. That is in addition to a doubling, under the Government, of intensive care beds and a significant increase in capacity of the accident and emergency department. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been invited to Bolton to open one or all of these facilities. May I say on my 60th birthday what a wonderful present it would be if he accepted the invitation? I promise to pay for the plaque.

The Prime Minister: That does not seem to be an offer that I can refuse. I am delighted that that investment is going into my hon. Friend's constituency. Every accident and emergency department throughout the country that needs it is being refurbished. In addition, there is the largest hospital-building programme since the war. [Interruption.] Before the Tories start shouting out, I might add that when we came to office not one hospital was being built under their programme.
That is the substance, and the difference. We are making an investment in the national health service. The Leader of the Opposition's economic policy means that he would have to cut that investment. Over the past two weeks we have not yet had an answer to explain how the Tories can spend an extra £1 billion on private medical insurance and still keep to the spending plans that we have set out.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Labour Governments are famous for soaking the rich, but with exorbitant petrol taxes the Government are guilty of milking the poor. The car is not a luxury in rural constituencies such as Ribble Valley; it is a necessity. The Prime Minister tells us that the tax is all being earmarked for public services. However, there is a VAT element on higher petrol prices that has given the Chancellor of the Exchequer a windfall VAT tax. Why cannot that tax now be returned to the motorist? When will the Prime Minister stop caning the motorist?

The Prime Minister: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Government he supported who introduced the fuel duty escalator. In the past year, less than 2p of the 18p per litre rise in the price of petrol has been fuel duty. The hon. Gentleman is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, is he not? When the Leader of the Opposition was asked another substance question—another policy question—about whether he would take off any of the petrol duty, he said that he would not because
We have to be very careful
about matters of taxation. Conservatives can go round the country telling people how they support the campaign on petrol duty, but the truth is that they are not prepared to make one commitment on it.
It is true that there was a fuel duty escalator, and in the first two years that increased the price of petrol. We did it for the reasons that I have explained, to get rid of the huge deficit that we inherited from the Conservatives. In the past year, however, the increased price has been the result of rises in the price of oil. Until the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to put his party's policies in order, we will take no lessons from him about these matters.

Ms Helen Southworth: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the £1 billion investment in science that was announced today, a radical improvement for our national science base which was reduced to impoverishment under the Tories? Further, is he aware that north-west senior scientists, academics, politicians and industrialists are meeting this Friday in Manchester to put, in partnership, the north-west right at the front of the biotech revolution? Will he take a personal interest in the North-West Science and Daresbury


taskforce to ensure that we get the continued new investment in our north-west science base which our excellence merits?

The Prime Minister: That is right. I gather that the principal of the university of Manchester has welcomed today's announcement. It is a major investment in science in this country. We do it to ensure not merely that we are educating our people properly, but that we can carry on being the number one place to do business in the whole of Europe. I quote from what the US consultants said just a few weeks ago when asked to look into this:
The UK rose to 2nd place in the worldwide index as a destination of choice for foreign investors.
They say that the
continued pro-business stance of the Blair Government…all underlie this favourable British market position.
If we carry on running a stable economy and then make the investment in science and education, we have the best chance of a prosperous and successful future for our people; but if we go back to the days of unstable economics, back to the days of deficit financing, and if we turn our backs on Europe, or cut investment, then jobs and prosperity go—again, a substance question.

Mr. Simon Burns: As a precaution, may I ask the Prime Minister if he would be kind enough to answer the specific question that I am about to ask, rather than the question that he hopes I am going to ask? Is he aware that, today in mid-Essex—I am not interested in the rest of the country—1,600 more people are on a hospital waiting list than on 2 May 1997? Can he explain to my constituents and to me why, in mid-Essex, there has not been a single day since 2 May 1997 when hospital waiting lists have been lower than when the Conservative Government left office?

The Prime Minister: I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of his own constituency because I do not know it, but I will make sure that I get the response. However, if we are to reduce hospital waiting lists—of course, the in-patient lists have come down nationally by 100,000—we have to make an investment in more nurses, doctors and facilities in the health service. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head: he is against that extra investment in the health service. He is going to go into the next election—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. I am afraid that at some point Conservative Members are going to have to answer a few questions on policy. If they go into the next election holding to their tax guarantee, then, as my predecessor, the former leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, said, the only way that their tax policy can be made to add up is swingeing cuts in education and health. That

is the fact; so although there are people in his area entitled to ask for more money in mid-Essex to cure the waiting list problem, he is not one of them.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The earlier noise in here must have made our Australian visitors feel quite at home.
On the question of the programme for the intergovernmental conference, may I ask the Prime Minister if, when he last met the leaders of Austria, Finland, the Irish Republic and Sweden, they discussed the European Union's rapid reaction force? If they did hold such a discussion, did he receive assurances from the leaders of those neutral countries that they would support the setting up of such a force?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we did discuss that and they are supportive of setting up the rapid reaction force. Of course, we have to be very careful of the sensitivities of non-NATO EU member countries, but the whole purpose of the force is to allow us that greater facility to deal with situations that may arise on the doorstep of the European Union, where it is important that European Union member countries co-operate. In defence policy, the work that has been done by the Government in co-operation with other Governments is a classic example of how a positive, constructive attitude in Europe yields the best results for Europe and for the country.

Mr. David Lidington: So that the Bill on football hooliganism can receive swift passage and proper parliamentary scrutiny, will the Prime Minister agree today to drop from his legislative programme his Bill to restrict trial by jury?

The Prime Minister: No, I certainly will not. Both those matters go to the heart of the law and order debate on policy. The mode of trial legislation was recommended by a royal commission, it is supported by the Lord Chief Justice, it will hugely increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system and we will be able to use some of the money thus saved in front-line policing.
Two weeks ago the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) demanded that we introduce emergency legislation on football hooligans and said that he would give it fair passage. We now know what he means by parliamentary scrutiny of every line, dot and comma. Having called for that emergency legislation, he is not prepared to bring people in the House of Lords into line to get it through. What the country should know is that he is standing in the way of policy measures on football hooligans, community service orders—how can he oppose the idea of people having a penalty levied against them if they breach a community service order?—mode of trial, and fines on illegal traffickers. Those measures will deliver decent law and order in this country.

Points of Order

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the half-hour of Prime Minister's Question Time we only reached question 7. Was not one reason for that slow progress the Prime Minister's insistence on answering a question posed to him not this week but last week, by the leader of the Liberal Democrats? If that is to be in order in future, may we expect answers to all the questions we ask the right hon. Gentleman that are never answered? If so, we will not get beyond question 2.

Madam Speaker: It is reasonable for the Prime Minister to correct something that he wanted to correct from last week. In any case, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong: we may have reached question 7 on the Order Paper, but he has perhaps forgotten that the leader of his party put six questions, so that is seven plus six. The leader of the Liberal Democrat party also put two questions, so there were more than seven questions. I can add up too.

Mr. James Clappison: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time about the early release of prisoners on home detention curfew—especially those convicted of grievous bodily harm—I believe I heard the Prime Minister say that that measure had the support of the official Opposition when it came before the House. I was the Conservative spokesman on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and that measure certainly did not have the support of the Opposition at that time. The Standing Committee proceedings will bear that out, and will show that the official Opposition tried to exclude high-risk offenders.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, that is certainly not a point of order. It is a matter of political argument and debate.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's questions, the right hon. Gentleman answered a question that was put to him last week. That seems to be a departure from normal procedure. Is it to be part of our procedure in future, so that we can all get our questions answered?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me earlier. I hope that that will not be the case, but it seemed to me that the Prime Minister was correcting something that he had said last week. I obviously do not want that to happen weekly, and I shall make that known to the Prime Minister and to his Office. I hope that that will help the Opposition.

Community Reinvestment

Mr. David Kidney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the regulation of financial institutions so as to require them to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs for credit services and deposit services of the communities in which they are regulated to do business; and to require the Financial Services Authority to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are regulated to do business, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
There was a great outcry when, on one day last April, Barclays Bank closed more than 170 branches. For 86 communities, the decision marked the end of access to any local banking services whatever. Customers complained, community leaders complained, and hon. Members complained, but the decision was not changed. This week, people power was successful in overturning another decision of some banks. The news that plans to charge for the use of cash withdrawal machines have been dropped is very welcome. However, I suggest that those two great issues demonstrate that banks cannot be trusted always to put the interests of their customers first.
Banks make their profits in the communities that they serve, and they should put something back into those communities. The Government believe that. The Government have ambitious plans to regenerate areas of social exclusion, to make cash banking cheaper for the poor and to maintain services in rural areas. The Government see banks as partners in achieving those aims, but seek a voluntary compact rather than a formal system of regulation. I think they are slightly wrong in that, although I certainly share the view that heavy-handed regulation is undesirable. My Bill seeks to achieve a light-touch addition to the current regulation of banks.
The Bank of England Act 1998 transferred the Bank of England's current supervisory powers to the Financial Services Authority. I propose that the FSA's powers be extended to mirror those of United States bank regulators under that country's Community Reinvestment Act 1977. In a moment, I shall describe those powers in a little more detail. However, I stress now that they are not intended to interfere with proper commercial decision making. Regulation must be consistent with safe and sound operation of banks' business activities.
Building on initial work by the social exclusion unit, the Treasury has set to work to tackle problems of financial exclusion. There are many manifestations of social exclusion, but I shall only give the example of the unbanked and the practice of so-called red-lining, which is a refusal to lend to certain areas. I support the Treasury's stated intention of encouraging wider access to financial services for individuals and communities who may be suffering detriment from not having access to facilities such as a bank account or some types of insurance.
I welcome the Cruickshank report on competition in United Kingdom banking. I welcome, too, the reports of the Treasury's policy action teams on "Access to Financial Services" and on "Enterprise and Social Exclusion". The former points the way to developing new and alternative means of delivering and providing banking services, such as the recent suggestion of a universal bank operated by the Post Office. The latter led directly to the Treasury inviting


the Bank of England to report regularly on finance for business in deprived groups and communities. I understand that the Bank of England intends to publish its first such report this autumn, with its regular review of finance for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Reports such as those help to inform debate concerning those who have no bank account and those who cannot gain access to suitable finance. They also help to determine the future direction of public policy. The extent of branch closures, for example, has contributed to the policy of offering a basic banking service through post offices. Additionally, the estimate that 3.5 million people are without basic banking facilities has contributed to the Treasury deadline to banks to provide, by October, a new form of basic account.
I believe that for policies such as those to succeed, we have to have the right regulatory framework in place. I want community reinvestment to be a matter of partnership, and the Government of the day to represent the public interest in such a partnership. I want communities to be represented in a variety of ways, including through customer organisations and voluntary organisations such as the Campaign for Community Banking Services. I want the private sector to be represented not least by the banks themselves. However, in my view, the banking regulator should have the powers to ensure that the banks keep their side of the bargain that that partnership reflects.
On the very first page of the Cruickshank report, there is a call for a new policy framework for the relationship between Government and the banking industry. Although I might quibble about the absence of a reference to Parliament, I agree that a new framework is desirable. I argue that, as part of that new framework, there is a need to underpin by statute the very good work that is being done to combat social and financial exclusion.
The Cruickshank report calls for action to be taken in a number of spheres of banking practice, including money transmission, small business markets and the reform of merger law. Although my Bill may not make it to the statute book on this occasion, may I ask Ministers, while they are contemplating implementation of those Cruickshank recommendations, also to consider seriously adjusting the powers of the regulator in the manner that I suggest?
There will be those who will be nervous about calls for additional regulation. There is an understandable fear that it may add to bureaucratic burdens and lessen competitiveness. Let me try to reassure anyone harbouring such fears. The model for my proposal is the US Community Reinvestment Act. America is not generally regarded as a country overburdened by state controls—nor are American banks seen as uncompetitive. However, for more than 20 years, the Act has encouraged banks and financial institutions to meet the credit needs of their communities. A bank's record on serving the community, including disadvantaged sections of it, will be taken into account when regulatory permissions are considered. The regulator's permission is required for such matters as mergers and branch openings.
In 1999, a group of Democrat Senators claimed that the Act's achievements included significantly improved availability of credit in historically under-served communities, a dramatic increase in home ownership by low and moderate-income individuals and investment by

commercial banks and thrifts in housing development and rehabilitation and in community economic development. The scale of community financing needs is obviously bigger in the US, but the principle is the same. When I mention that the US initiatives are channelled through community development banks, credit unions, loan funds, micro-finance funds and neighbourhood equity funds, it is plain to see that those initiatives are easily transferable to the UK.
Under the American Act, banks are assessed from time to time against three tests—the lending test, the investment test and the service test. As a result of the assessment, the regulator assigns the bank one of four ratings—outstanding, satisfactory, "needs to improve" or substantially non-compliant. The ratings are made public. Obviously, banks will want to maintain a high reputation by seeking the best rating. If we apply that regime to the example—hypothetical, of course—of a bank in this country that seeks to close a lot of branches, gives little notice of its intentions and makes little effort to provide alternative arrangements for the people affected by the closures, it is difficult to see how a bank that behaved in that way would obtain a rating of outstanding.
Instead, the desire to maintain the best rating might persuade a bank having a commercial plan to close branches first to set in place alternative arrangements for the communities affected. Greater use of information technology, collaborative arrangements with other banks and now arrangements with the local post office are the kinds of measures that could be planned in advance.
In that example of how a community reinvestment Act might bring positive benefits to this country, I chose to highlight branch closures because they have been of concern recently. That issue has illustrated the shortcomings of relying entirely on a voluntary approach in tackling financial exclusion. It is easy enough, however, to imagine other situations in which banking services to communities could be improved because banks would wish to behave in a manner that preserved the best rating.
I started my speech by referring to Barclays' programme of branch closures, so I shall finish with the reported words of Mathew Barrett, the new chief executive of Barclays. Speaking at the bank's annual general meeting in April, he said:
The lesson is clear. Where we have difficult closures, there must be a debate among the people affected and we have to do all that we can to eliminate the inconvenience. We did not. We must do better.
I want British banks to do better, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Kidney, Liz Blackman, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. David Drew, Ms Julia Drown, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Andrew Love, Ms Margaret Moran and Mr. Gareth R. Thomas.

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT

Mr. David Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to extend the regulation of financial institutions so as to require them to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs for credit services and deposit services of the communities in which they are regulated to do business; and to require the Financial Services Authority to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are regulated to do business, consistent with the safe


and sound operation of such institutions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 154].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft European Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.

That the draft International Seabed Authority (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

New Clause 2

Orders of the Day — PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY: BULLYING

'( ). In section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material), at the end of subsection (2) there is inserted'; or
(b) prevent the headteacher or governing body of a maintained school, or a teacher employed by a maintained school, from taking steps to prevent any form of bullying.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 74, line 2, leave out clause 98.
No. 6, in clause 102, page 75, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
'paragraph 63 of Schedule 37 to the Education Act 1996'.

Mr. Waterson: The new clause and amendments concern what is euphemistically known as "section 28", but more accurately as section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. Their effect would be pretty straightforward: they would simply return the Bill to its state when it left the House of Lords a little while ago. They would, in fact, do two things. They would reinstate section 28—as I shall continue to describe it, euphemistically—and they would reinstate their lordships' amendment relating to bullying. In other words, Opposition Members seek to overturn the amendments made by the Government in Committee.
We may have to return to this, but it occurs to me that it might be convenient, in due course, somehow to engineer a vote not on new clause 2 but on amendment No. 7, the key amendment in the group. It seeks to leave out clause 98—in other words, to reinstate section 28, or section 2A. I hope that that is reasonably clear.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that, in the wake of the conviction of the London nail bomber, the hon. Gentleman, like all other Members, would want to condemn homophobia in all its manifestations. Why, then, does the Conservative party continue to support this nasty little homophobic piece of legislation?

Mr. Waterson: I will not co-operate with the hon. Gentleman's nasty little press release; but if he has any grown-up contributions to make to this serious and, indeed, narrow, debate, no doubt he will try to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Our position, which has been consistent throughout, is very clear. It has never had anything to do with bigotry, prejudice or intolerance. Homosexuality is a personal and


private choice for consenting adults, and that is as things should be. This provision, however, has never had anything to do with any of that; it is simply to do with whether public money should be spent in schools on promoting homosexuality among children.

Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: No. I want to make a little progress, because I think some Members are becoming slightly overheated. I intend to deal with every point that they are either muttering about from a sedentary position, or seeking to intervene on.
The first point to make—one that the Minister conceded in Committee—is that the Government's proposal was not in the manifesto for the last general election, although, curiously, it was in the manifesto for the 1992 election. I do not know whether the Government still intend to whip their Members for the vote, but no doubt their ability to do so will depend partly on what I have just said.
This nasty little provision is typical of the Government's attitude. We believe that it is based not on principle, but on spin and political correctness. The proposal to repeal section 28—as I shall call it for ease of reference—is on a par with the Prime Minister's ill-fated remarks about cashpoint criminals. It is cheap gesture politics. It is designed to curry favour with the gay and lesbian community, and, in its early stages, it was designed to be part of the Prime Minister's again ill-fated attack on what he was good enough to call the forces of conservatism.
Sadly for the Government, it turned out that those forces actually represent most people in the country. It is interesting to note that, in a recent survey in the Prime Minister's constituency, 71 per cent. of his constituents—of whom 63 per cent. were Labour voters—said that they wanted section 28 to be retained. It is also noteworthy that the leaders of all the major religious groups take a similar view.

Mr. Bradshaw: That is a lie.

Madam Speaker: Order. I heard that.

Mr. Bradshaw: I apologise, Madam Speaker, and I will retract what I said. Nevertheless, I would like some evidence, because the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Madam Speaker: That is another matter. We will not have that sort of language in the House.

Mr. Waterson: I am afraid the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) will have to contain himself, Madam Speaker. I have got as far as page 2 of my remarks.
Although more heat than light has been generated on this issue, it is instructive to look at the history. The provision first saw light as a Back-Bench amendment. The Minister glowers—[Interruption.] We are going to have a serious and restrained debate on the matter, whether Labour Members like it or not.
The amendment was tabled originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), and was later supported by the Government. The 1987 debate

are interesting. Given all the words expended on the issue since, it is worth noting that the amendment was accepted in Committee without a Division.
Indeed, there seems to have been quite a constructive debate about the correct way to address what was clearly perceived to be a problem. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the earlier part of what was then clause 28 of the Local Government Bill was
a proper statement on what should be the role of local authorities.—[Official Report, 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 990.]
However, it is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman clearly had criticisms of the rest of the clause. In an amendment, he proposed that the word "commend" be used in place of "promote"—the word that has caused so much controversy. If that had been accepted, one wonders how it might have changed the way in which the provision has been perceived.

Dr. Harris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, although there was no Division when the proposal was considered in Committee—it happened before my time in the House—Liberal Democrat Members opposed what became section 28 in this Chamber, both then and ever since.

Mr. Waterson: I am not sure that they were Liberal Democrat Members at the time, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was not trying to suggest that they did not oppose the measure.
The Minister in charge of the 1987 Bill was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who made the following points. First, he said:
It is not right for pupils to be taught, in any school, that homosexuality is the norm.
That does not seem to have met with a great deal of controversy in the debate. He also said:
I recognise that there may be a need for teachers to touch on the subject of homosexuality in the classroom.
We, of course, agree with that.
My right hon. and learned Friend went on:
In the Government's view, objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, in the way that I suggested a short time ago, would be perfectly proper, because it is not promotion of homosexuality.—[Official Report, 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1019.]
I think that that is a very fair view.
A central issue in the debate on section 28 has been bullying. Any lingering concerns on that subject were addressed in the Lords amendment that the new clause would reinstate, but the Government's rhetoric on the matter has moved on. At one time we heard a lot about bullying, but we have heard much less recently. That is probably as well, for reasons that I shall explain.
Sadly, the Minister does not seem to have kept up with the Government's changes in rhetoric. In Committee, she said:
I have a view about young people being able to sort out their own ideas in a supportive environment in which they are not subject or vulnerable to bullying because they are unsure about themselves. That is what the measure is about.
She then went on to say:
The repeal will remove discriminatory and confusing legislation from the statute book.


I think that I am quoting the right hon. Lady fairly. She also said:
People have suffered far too much fear and intimidation…—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 June 2000; c. 541–2.]
That seemed to make the case that bullying was the main evil to be addressed. If that were so, there would be agreement on both sides of the House. However, we take the view that bullying must be tackled whether it is because of someone's hair colour, because they are fat or thin or because of their possible sexual orientation. Any teacher worth the name should be prepared to crack down effectively on bullying as a matter of urgency. There cannot be much disagreement about that. However, for those who take a different view, there is the Lords amendment, which we are seeking to reinstate.
All too often this argument proceeds by assertion rather than evidence. How much evidence is there of a major problem of homophobic bullying? Back in January, a spokesman at the Department for Education and Employment said
we don't have any concrete evidence…
The chief inspector of schools is on record as saying
My own experience is that there is no evidence that section 28 has had a negative effect on teachers' ability to deal with bullying. No head teacher has raised it with me in all the school visits I have made.
That seems a pretty telling point, because I cannot imagine that anyone has made more school visits than the chief inspector of schools.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman may be aware, depending on how closely he studies the proceedings of the Select Committee on this matter, that when the chief inspector of schools came before the Select Committee and was questioned on that issue—and, indeed, in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw)—he specifically admitted that he had never raised the issue directly with head teachers.
Furthermore, a survey was carried out by Mr. Neil Duncan and published by Routledge, and another by the Institute of Education. They showed that 61 per cent. of schools surveyed were aware of lesbian, gay or bisexual pupils in their schools, and that 51 per cent. of those schools had reported at least one instance of homophobic bullying in the past term. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that is ample testimony, whatever the chief inspector's non sequiturs on the subject?

Mr. Waterson: I am aware of those surveys, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing them into the debate. I think that there are two issues here, and it is important to separate them. One is whether homophobic bullying takes place in schools. I should have thought that it is clear that it does. There are different conclusions from the evidence on how prevalent it is, and to what extent children at a certain age understand the meaning of some of the words they use. The second, more important question is whether, as a result of section 28, teachers feel constrained in from dealing with such bullying.

Ms Julia Drown: A survey was carried out asking teachers whether they felt reticent

because of what was on the statute book, even though it is not supposed to affect schools. Some 40 per cent. of teachers believed that the provision did inhibit them from talking properly to some children and students who felt that they were being bullied. Is not 40 per cent. a significant number of teachers who are feeling inhibited because section 28 is on the statute book?

Mr. Waterson: With respect, I fear that the hon. Lady was eliding two quite separate points. Whether teachers believe that the section affects them at all is yet another issue that we shall discuss. The other issue is whether they are prevented from talking about homosexuality in the classroom. I seriously wonder whether teachers feel constrained when it comes to dealing with bullying for that reason. Bullying is a separate problem, whatever the excuse or ostensible reason for it—there can be no proper reason for it—and we should crack down on it. I do not think that we can separate out homophobic bullying for a particular purpose.
4 pm
When we first began to debate some of the issues in the Bill, I wrote to secondary heads in my constituency to find out about their attitude. They held a meeting and wrote to me. Their comments partly relate to the hon. Lady's remarks. The letter stated:
Jointly, we can say to you that bullying goes on in every school…whatever its causes, Eastbourne Schools, in common with other institutions, are not prepared to accept it… In our experience, there is no single, major root cause of bullying, however, we do work hard through social and moral education to eradicate prejudice.
That was from Peter Barton, the head of the Causeway school, who is chair of the Eastbourne area education partnership. The letter was written on behalf of the heads of all the secondary schools in my constituency, but I do not think it is untypical.
Two points arise from that letter. The first is that those heads treat bullying as the problem—whatever its causes. The second is that they obviously do not feel at all constrained in trying to deal with bullying or to eradicate prejudice.
Not long ago, Mr. Arthur Cornell, a retired and distinguished headmaster in my constituency, wrote to The Times on the issue. He stated:
Matters of bullying are about demanding dignity and respect for the individual as a human right.
We can all agree about that. The letter continued:
If I deal with a pupil who has bullied a boy because he is wearing a turban, there is no suggestion that in doing so I am promoting Sikhism… The claim that Section 28 prevents schools from dealing effectively with bullying arising from homophobia says more about a school's policy on bullying than it does about Section 28.
That is a pretty good summary of the point I am trying to make.

Dr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there was a law that schools should not promote the teaching of the acceptability of Sikhism as a pretended religion, that would create real difficulty for teachers? Indeed, it would be an open invitation for the bullying of Sikhs. A child might say, "Miss, I've been told my religion is unacceptable", and the teacher would reply, "Well, that's what it says in the law." The hon. Gentleman's analogy is


offensive in any case, but he does not seem to realise that the legislation made bullying inevitable, or that there was difficulty in tackling bullying because of the words "acceptable" and "unacceptable".

Mr. Waterson: I am prepared to concede that the analogy—like most analogies—can be taken only so far.
I am sure that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is strapping on her spurs and boots and preparing to climb on to her high horse over this issue—as she did in Committee—to lecture us and the rest of the world, if they are listening, about the purity and goodness of the Government's intentions. To dismantle that argument, one has to begin by considering how the Government's case for repealing section 28—a decision that I am sure they bitterly regret—has subtly changed.
We used to hear much about bullying. We are still hearing it from the Minister, but she is slightly out of step with the spin doctors—I hope that does not presage anything too awful for her. Recently, the Government have been pushing hard on three issues. The first is guidance. We have heard and will continue to hear much about guidance to schools and to teachers—suddenly, there is a lot of it around. Guidance is welcome as far as it goes. I have not followed the progress of the Learning and Skills Bill as closely as I have the proceedings on this Bill, but there have been some useful debates on the matter. The Government's proposals do not go as far as we would like. However, it is difficult to avoid feeling—as with yesterday's debates on cabinet secrecy in local government—that Ministers see guidance as a way of getting themselves out of a tight spot.
The second issue is the Government's greater reliance on the argument that the section does not apply to schools at all. I can understand how that argument runs legally. The only problem is that it applies—of course—to local education authorities. Many hon. Members agree that LEAs have some impact on what is taught or not taught in the schools in their area. It seems to be common ground on both sides of the argument that, whatever the law may or may not say, there is much confusion about whether the section applies to schools.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's point about schools, but may I take him back to what he said earlier when he focused on the position in 1988, when the section was introduced? Since then, there has been a revolution in the way in which schools are administered, their budgets handled and decisions taken in them. In the light of that, is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that the parents and the governors who have been empowered to make decisions in that period are no longer to be trusted to make sensible and reasonable decisions about the teaching of homosexuality?

Mr. Waterson: That is not what I am saying—certainly not. However, those on the other side of the argument really have to make up their minds. On one hand, it is argued that the proposed repeal will be a small piece of tidying up that needs to take place because it is a bad thing to have legislation lurking on the statute book that nobody uses or is likely to use. Certainly, it is clear that nobody has ever used section 28. If that is the case, however, why was there all the excitement and bally-hoo when it was first announced that the section was going to

be tidied away? The alternative position is that adopted by Mr. Peter Tatchell and Stonewall, who argue that the section has an impact on teachers and on how they choose to arrange matters and to teach. The hon. Gentleman may wish to intervene later when I discuss this aspect in more detail, but, sooner or later, the argument for repeal must decide which colours it is putting its money on or which horse it is backing.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Those in favour of retaining section 28 must also make up their minds as to whether the changes that were brought in to strengthen the powers of school governing bodies and to give parents a central role on those bodies are working or not. The tenor of my hon. Friend's argument is that those changes are so weak that parents cannot ensure that inappropriate teaching does not happen in a school. If he thinks that, presumably he will suggest further legislation to make governing bodies really effective in the way that the previous Conservative Government thought they had done.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and it will be interesting to hear what Ministers have to say about it. I want to make progress, but these are detailed issues and they deserve detailed debate.
The confusion as to whether the section applies to schools also extends to such Olympian characters as the Prime Minister. He said:
We believe…in getting rid of section 28. That is not because we believe it right to promote homosexuality but because we believe it is right for school teachers and others to be able to explain to children properly the facts of life.—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 840.]
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that they were prevented from doing that by the legislation.
I wish to put on record my gratitude to Angela Mason of Stonewall for providing information on this issue. We have not necessarily agreed, but she has been very reasonable and reasoned in her representations to me. In a letter to me, she said that
there has been enormous confusion about how the section applies in schools.
Another information sheet produced by Stonewall refers to a string of occasions on which local authorities and educational institutions have been stopped from doing things that they would otherwise have done. One of the most well-known examples is that of Corby borough council which wanted to set up a Corby lesbian line.
The third issue about which we have heard something, although not a great deal, appears on the face of the Bill. It is suggested that section 28 is somehow objectionable under the European convention on human rights. It is a convention that the Government do not show us the legal opinions that they receive, but I have seen other opinions that suggest the opposite. Commission case law on the subject has consistently held that same-sex relationships fall outside the family-life provisions of article 8 of the convention. At the very least, the point is arguable. Indeed, there is an argument the other way: parents might feel able to bring a case under the convention if section 28 were repealed and certain things happened as a result.
I could speak endlessly on the legal aspect, but I suspect that I would lose the attention of the House—

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Waterson: Let me finish the sentence. I shall not at all insist that Ministers break with precedent and show us the legal opinions that they have received, but the Minister for Local Government and the Regions could be a little more forthcoming in this debate than she was in Committee in talking us through the sudden appearance of the certificate in the Bill.

Mr. Marsden: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Human Rights Act 1998 and European Court judgments. It is obviously of great satisfaction to those of us on the Government Benches that the Opposition are taking such a keen interest in matters European. However, may I refer the hon. Gentleman to something domestic in this respect? As he will know, section 28 refers to the unacceptability
of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship,
which presumably, by moving the new clause, he wants to entrench in the Bill. Is he therefore in conflict with the House of Lords judgment in September, in which Lord Nicholls and Lord Slynn of Hadley said in the majority decision on Fitzpatrick v. Sterling housing association that same-sex partners could be considered to be family members?

Mr. Waterson: I have a feeling that that case was to do with the Rent Acts. If it is the case that I am thinking of—it may not be—their lordships made it abundantly clear that their decision only concerned matters affecting the Rent Acts. No doubt we can look at that later.
The fourth point made—in a sense I have dealt with it in response to interventions—is that, as there have been no prosecutions, the provision does not matter. I have made the points on that, which are clear. Either the provision is a dead letter and nobody worries about it, in which case why all the fuss, or it has been having an effect and we therefore need to debate it.
Perhaps the worst aspect of this issue is what it reveals about the Government's metropolitan attitudes—their domination by a liberal elite who are out of touch with most people and even with large tracts of their own party's supporters. The provision simply does not pass the Kilfoyle test. An awful lot of decent Labour Back Benchers, many with religious convictions, will, if whipped, vote with a heavy heart.
By contrast, ours is a common-sense approach that seeks to prevent the abuse of taxpayers' money and to give parents the reassurance that they want and deserve. We have always felt that the provision was tacked on to the end of this substantial Bill because it seemed to the spin doctors like a good idea at the time, and would distract attention from the much more important provisions affecting local government. I hope and expect that the Lords will stand firm again on this issue, as on others, because on this issue, as on others, they are more in tune with the views of the British people than this Government.

Mr. Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: I will not give way.
Have no fear: Government spokesmen are already spinning that they will have to drop the abolition of section 28 if they do not want to lose the whole Bill. I hope that the same attitude applies to the fourth option that we discussed yesterday. It is time for the Government to see sense, abandon their obsession and move on.

Miss Geraldine Smith: Section 28 has always been highly controversial. It most certainly did not achieve all that its supporters claimed for it—nor will its repeal alter in any significant way the homophobic attitudes and prejudices in our society. The repeal of section 28 would not have stopped the London nail bomber killing innocent people in a pub. It would have made absolutely no difference. Section 28 applies only to local authorities, and cannot be invoked against individuals, companies or other publicly funded bodies such as the Arts Council, the BBC and the Health Development Agency.
It therefore follows that section 28 does not inhibit or prevent teachers and school governors from including in their school curriculum the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as an alternative form of family relationship, should they so desire. In fact, the guidelines make the matter quite clear when they state:
This prohibition applies to the activities of local authorities themselves, as distinct from the activities of governing bodies and staff of schools.

Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend referred to the London nail bomber and said that there is no connection. Does she not accept that he was motivated by homophobia and that a discriminatory piece of legislation such as section 28 is, by its very nature, homophobic?

Miss Smith: It is extremely sad that that evil person, the London nail bomber, carried out those acts. However, that has nothing to do with section 28, and saying that it does is a red herring. Would the London nail bomber have considered whether or not section 28 was in operation before he carried out those bombings? Of course not.
Section 28 does not apply to schools and should not affect the delivery of sex and relationship education in schools. It does not affect the activities of school governors or teachers; nor does it prevent objective classroom discussion of homosexuality. Schools can provide counselling, guidance, advice and support to all pupils. Any claim that section 28, in itself, stops homosexuality being discussed in schools is clearly unfounded. It is complete and utter nonsense to claim that section 28 inhibits schools or teachers from having in place appropriate measures to deal with cases of homophobic or other types of bullying.
For many years, I have had close contact with schools and teachers in my area. They have raised a host of issues with me, but on no occasion has a teacher, head teacher or school governor brought to my attention any problems arising from the implementation of section 28. It would appear that the chief inspector of schools has had a similar experience, as we heard earlier that the issue of section 28 has not been raised in any of the schools that he has visited. Indeed, it has not come up in Ofsted inspections as a matter affecting schools.

Mr. David Borrow: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Is she coming to the


conclusion that, as section 28 has had no impact on what happens in schools, it is redundant and therefore there is no need for the House to seek to reintroduce it into the Bill?

Miss Smith: Section 28 is certainly redundant for schools, but I shall come on to the promotion of homosexuality in relation to local authorities, which is what this debate should be about.
I would be surprised—I am willing to accept interventions on the matter—if anyone could produce a teacher or head teacher who was prepared to say that he or she allowed bullying in school and did not take preventive measures to stop it immediately because of concern about falling foul of section 28. Teachers would not let that happen.

Mr. Phil Willis: I am not as distinguished a former head as the head to whom the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred. However, the matter is not simply about heads not giving way to bullying; it is about how we deal with the issue of inculcating into young people respect for those who are different. That is the challenge, and I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would address that issue, rather than the spurious argument that head teachers or teachers could condone bullying which, in fact, they do not.

Miss Smith: Teachers and head teachers are not affected by section 28; it does not apply to schools. New guidelines have been issued since section 28 was introduced. It is a complete red herring to suggest that it affects schools or the teaching in them. It is for governing bodies and teachers to decide what they wish to teach.

Mr. Patrick Hall: Has my hon. Friend seen the evidence based on research that the health and education research unit of the university of London published in November 1997, called "Playing it safe"? The research, carried out among secondary schools in England and Wales, arrived at clear conclusions that teachers and governors felt that section 28 applied to schools, even though it technically did not, and that it influenced their perception of how they should do their job in terms of meeting the needs of young people.

Miss Smith: I am not surprised that there is confusion in schools, because there seems to be rather a lot of confusion in the House. Many Members of Parliament seem not to understand that section 28 does not affect schools. People, especially hon. Members, would do well to research the matter thoroughly and to pass that information on to head teachers in their constituencies. If they are confused, I am not surprised that they are sending out confusing signals, which have been picked up by teachers and head teachers.
Another widely quoted piece of nonsense, which is offered as a reason why section 28 should be repealed, is that its existence somehow acts as a barrier to building a more tolerant and inclusive society. Those who foster that myth are, of course, completely unable to show that the introduction of section 28 caused an upsurge in homophobic activity or that its repeal will have the reverse effect.

Mr. Borrow: At the heart of section 28 lies a statement that promoting homosexuality as a pretended family

relationship is unacceptable. Does not my hon. Friend feel in any way that that introduces into legislation the suggestion that homosexual relationships are unacceptable and that gay people who have long-term family relationships with someone of the same sex are in a pretended relationship, not one of merit? Does not she consider that that contributes to homophobia?

Miss Smith: I think that section 28 was badly drafted and that it could have been amended, but I do not believe that it is the role of local authorities to promote homosexuality or, indeed, any other form of sexuality. That is not their job; it is not what local ratepayers expect them to do.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because she is dealing with the important relationship between section 28 and local authorities. If she will not accept that section 28 has inhibited what can be taught or done in schools, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, will not she at least accept that it is now having an inhibiting and negative effect on the health education and promotion that local authorities can provide? I refer to the case that has been brought against Glasgow city council, as a result of which all its funding for HIV and AIDS groups has been stopped. The basis of that case is that such activity contravenes section 28. Is not that a clear and unambiguous example of how section 28 inhibits the health education activities of local authorities?

Miss Smith: Section 28 makes it clear that health promotion should not be stopped and that HIV and other information can be provided by local authorities.
I shall make progress. The fact that this matter is once again being debated in Parliament and that it has received much coverage has given a platform to every homophobic group and presented them with an opportunity to whip up anti-homosexual feelings among the public. We have seen that recently in newspapers and on television.
On the subject of inclusiveness and tolerance, may I say that the intolerant way in which the party Whips are being used for this debate on a topic that is essentially a matter of conscience leads me to believe that the major parties in this place have much to learn about tolerance?
The core of the issue is section 28(1), which states:
A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality.
Section 28 is part of the civil law, not the criminal law. It therefore regulates what a local authority may do but does not create any criminal offences. In theory, any ratepayer could apply for a judicial review of a local authority action or decision that might appear to be in breach of section 28. If that was successful, the court could, for example, make an injunction restraining the authority from continuing with its action. No damages or fines could be awarded.

Mr. Borrow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Miss Smith: No. I must make progress. I have taken several interventions.
Let us be honest. When we strip aside all the hot air and red herrings that have littered the debate, we are left with this simple question: should local authorities be


allowed to spend taxpayers' money on the promotion of homosexuality? My answer to that question is a clear and unequivocal no, not on the promotion of homosexuality or any other form of sexual relationship.
Given that the only real effect of repealing section 28 would be to remove the prohibitions that prevent local authorities from spending their taxpayers' money in that way, one can assume only that those in favour of the repeal are in favour of local authorities having the ability to promote homosexuality directly.

Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Lady clarify—

Miss Smith: I am sorry; I am trying to make progress.
I find it odd that so many supporters of repealing the section are silent on that point. Section 28 is badly drafted, and I understand why many would find the wording objectionable. That could well be improved by amendment, but no such amendments have been tabled. However, it provides the public with an important safeguard against the irresponsible actions of some local authorities, and until a credible alternative is found, it should remain.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am grateful to be called to speak after the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), whose speech contained a huge amount of common sense. I find myself agreeing with most of what she said. She spoke in practical terms, and it is important that we bring our practical experience to the debate.
I know that others want to speak, so I shall make a brief contribution from the perspective of a mother of young children who have yet formally to receive their sex education in school. I am deeply concerned about the way in which that is taught. I know that I am not alone in that, because in the playground parents come up to me and tell me of their fears about the implications of repealing section 28.
Young people are increasingly being encouraged by various media to experiment with sex. The fact that this country has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and the highest incidence of sexually transmitted disease in Europe is nothing to be proud of. As parliamentarians, we must work together to try to do something about that.
I read from cover to cover a copy of a teaching guide—yes, it is called a teaching guide—produced by Avon NHS health promotion trust. I was dismayed to find that the health authority has produced a written guide, teachers' notes and a video aimed at years 9, 10 and 11. Things have changed since my day, so for the benefit of the House, I should explain that that means 13, 14 and 15-year-olds.
On the video, speaking to the camera, a young boy says:
Try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.

Mr. Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Spelman: There have been many interventions in this debate. We all have brief contributions to make, and I should like to see mine through. The hon. Member for

Morecambe and Lunesdale took many interventions, making it difficult to follow her points, so I should like to persist.
Avon health authority spent £9,000 of public money on that material, basically aimed at encouraging people to break the law on the age of consent. With section 28 in place, that material, which was produced by the health authority for schools—why else would there be accompanying teacher's notes?—should not be used in any way. Certainly taxpayer's money should not be used to encourage children to break the law on the age of consent for sexual intercourse.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: The hon. Lady referred earlier to teenage pregnancies, which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree is an important issue, which should be addressed. Does she therefore feel that to teach girls of 14 or 15 about sexual activity with a view to discouraging teenage pregnancies would be a bad thing, in the same way as she seems to be saying that for boys of that age to be taught about sexual activity would be a bad thing?

Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to distract me from the words:
Try experimenting—
experimenting, if you please—
with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.

Mr. Hall: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Spelman: No, I have made my point. I do not want my children to be encouraged to experiment with children of their own sex or the opposite sex at the tender age of 13, 14 and 15. I feel incredibly strongly on that point. If that is the only point that I make in the House tonight, I want to make it most forcefully.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said that section 28 was poorly drafted, and I tend to agree. As parliamentarians, we could do something to make it clearer. None the less, it acts as a deterrent on my local authority, preventing it from purchasing documents, such as the one to which I have referred, to distribute within the schools for which it has responsibility, and I want to see that deterrent retained.
Closer to home for me is the booklet produced jointly by Birmingham city council and Birmingham health authority, the target group for which is local youth groups, which, in a couple of years, children of mine will be eligible to attend. That booklet also portrays under-age children experimenting with sex. Both from my perspective as a parent and with my interest in health matters, I find its cavalier attitude towards the attendant health risks irresponsible.
Referring to sexually transmitted diseases, the booklet says on page 86:
They are just part of life, as common as colds and flu.
Yet on page 88, the same booklet says:
Sexually transmitted infections don't just go away, they are not like colds.
Apart from the obvious point—

Mr. Hall: The hon. Lady has clearly read the document to which she has just referred, and I am pleased that she has. She quoted from a video called "Beyond a Phase" made by Avon health authority. Has she seen that video?

Mrs. Spelman: Yes, I have watched that video, and I replayed it twice to make sure that I had the words of the young lad. Do I need to repeat them? For such words to be presented to children is most shocking. He said:
Try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.
Any parents of my acquaintance who hear those words want a law in place that would prevent their children from being exposed to such material.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Lady has told the House that she has watched the video; will she confirm that it included several interviews with young people who expressed their abhorrence of gay activity and put the other side of the case?

Mrs. Spelman: The video contains a wide range of information, but it also includes something that should not be presented to young children. I would not wish my children to watch that.
The Birmingham health authority document was also produced with taxpayers' money. Apart from the blatant inconsistency of claiming on one page that sexually transmitted diseases resemble colds and stating on the next page that they do not, the document flies in the face of information that a health authority is in a position to promote differently. Britain has the biggest increase in sexually transmitted disease among teenagers; since 1988, the figure for teenage women has doubled. Who could possibly describe a disease such as chlamydia as anything like a cold? It can lead to pelvic inflammation, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. It is grossly irresponsible of a health authority, which has joint local authority funding, to issue a document that encourages young people to experiment with sex and describes sexually transmitted diseases as resembling a common cold.
In a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions press notice of 26 November last year, the Government state that they want to create
local government that listens to what people really want—how they want to be governed and how they want their services to be delivered.
Parents do not want section 28 to be repealed. If it is repealed, how can we protect our children from materials such as "Beyond a Phase"? How can a taxpayer prevent public money from being spent on a document that contains misleading information and on documents—such as that produced by Birmingham health authority—that compare sexually transmitted diseases to a cold?
As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, section 28 is almost the only route whereby a taxpayer can call for a judicial review of whether a health authority should be allowed to spend taxpayers' money on the documents that I have described. For me, that is an overwhelming argument for retaining the section.

Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) because I hope that my contribution will contrast starkly with hers. I disagreed with almost everything she said. I also disagreed with

almost everything that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) said, although I agreed with two points that she made. First, the hon. Lady was right to say that there is an urgent need in society for everyone to be more tolerant. I hope that my contribution is founded on the principle of the need for greater tolerance. I also agree with the hon. Lady that section 28 is badly drafted. However, we reached different conclusions about the action that we should take.
New clause 2 has barely been mentioned. I hope that we will be able to vote on amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which are at the heart of the matter that we are debating. I want to deal with those amendments in my speech. The House is familiar with what section 28 purports to do, but it is worth reminding hon. Members of that. It purports to prevent local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality. It forbids councils to publish material that has the intention of promoting homosexuality and to promote teaching in their schools of
the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
In Committee, we agreed that we wanted to see the back of section 28. Our debate today is about whether we want to change the decision that we made in Committee.
We made a great deal of progress in our deliberations on the Bill yesterday. We made several changes on matters such as equality of entitlement to pensions by different categories of councillors, indemnity for councillors and subjecting executives to greater public and media scrutiny. I am delighted that those changes were agreed. However, I hope that no changes will be made today to what was agreed in Committee. I hope that we shall continue to support the repeal of section 28.
Leaving aside Liberal Democrats' abhorrence of discrimination that is based on sexual orientation, there are three key reasons why I shall continue to oppose attempts to retain section 28. First, we believe that the section is a redundant piece of legislation as it affects schools. Secondly, it is meaningless in both legal and common-sense terms. Thirdly, it has led to much confusion among teachers about whether they can deal with issues involving homosexuality in schools, and especially homophobic bullying.
The repeal of section 28 alone should not be the issue. We should be concerned also with what will replace it. I was disappointed when the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said that he had not been studying carefully the passage of and deliberation on the Learning and Skills Bill. That Bill reflects clearly the Government's intention, with Liberal Democrat support, to replace the current arrangements in respect of section 28.
I referred to three reasons. The first is the redundancy of section 28. I am confused when those on the Opposition Front Bench are seeking to retain the section to give powers to local education authorities on the very day when we read in newspapers that it is the Conservative plan to abolish LEAs. I find confusion in Conservative thinking.

Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman sort it out for me.

Mr. Waterson: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of dragging us both out of order. It is not our policy to abolish local education authorities, but I fear that it is the Government's policy.

Mr. Foster: If that is so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be rapidly firing off a letter to, for example, Mr. John Clare, the education editor, who believes that that is what the leader of the Conservative party announced only yesterday. I could cite others.
Leaving aside Conservative plans for the future of LEAs, I hope that at least the Opposition will agree that it was a Conservative Government who made head teachers and governing bodies, which include parents, responsible in law for all relations relating to sex education within their schools in the Education Act 1996. Heads, governors and parents have total control of sex education and the teaching material that is used in their schools. They are free to reject any material that is sent to them by the LEA, campaign groups, health authorities or anyone else. In addition, parents have a right to withdraw their children from sex education. If we trust parents, head teachers and governors to be responsible for running our schools, managing quite significant budgets and ensuring that schools meet requirements and statutory duties, surely we can trust those people to be responsible for sex education.
Local education authorities now have no direct responsibility for sex education in our schools, whether that relates to issues of homosexuality or otherwise. For that reason, and that alone, we should be repealing section 28. It is entirely redundant legislation.
Secondly, in legal and common-sense terms, the section is nonsensical for the following simple reason. Homosexuality cannot be promoted. It is not possible to do so. We might as well introduce a Bill that forbids the promotion of left-handedness. As they grow up, some young people will start to realise that they are attracted to those of the same sex. Most of them do not. However, homosexuality is not taken up like train spotting or even joining the Conservative party. Young people cannot be persuaded to become gay, but the crucial thing that should matter to every hon. Member is that those young people need care. They need guidance. They do not need their lives to be made more difficult by decisions in the House.
4.45 pm
The third reason is that section 28 has undoubtedly, despite what some hon. Members have said, led to great confusion among teachers about whether they can or cannot deal with issues of homosexuality in school.

Mrs. Spelman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: Of course I will.

Mrs. Spelman: I appreciate that on a kind of 15-all basis.
The hon. Gentleman has said that homosexuality cannot be promoted. However, on the encouragement of young people to experiment with the same sex, does he not accept that particularly younger boys in their teenage years often go through a period of confusion and that encouraging them to experiment just makes that worse?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady has clearly got hung up on the Avon health authority video. Let me say, although I

was going to come to it a bit later, that I happen to agree with her. I do not think that it was a particularly helpful video, but I draw her attention to the fact that, under the legislation that her Government introduced, it would be for the governing body of the school to decide whether to use it. It is not a matter that we can determine here, but, in fairness to her, I think that she was right to draw our attention to that video and to some of the remarks within it, which I genuinely believe were not helpful to the case that I and other right hon. and hon. Members seek to make.
The key point is that section 28 causes confusion in the minds of teachers as to how they are to respond to issues of homosexuality and, in particular, to the issue of homophobic bullying. Indeed, it has put confusion in the minds of some council officers as to how they can or cannot provide services for gay and lesbian council tax payers and others.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne suggested that there is no evidence that section 28 has caused the confusion that I have described. Such evidence has already been cited by the hon. Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Bedford (Mr. Hall). Other examples can be cited. I wish to use just one: the evidence provided by my noble Friend Lord Tope. He has gathered a considerable body of evidence, which is, incidentally, informing some work by the Institute of Education at London university. His evidence from school pupils, their parents and teachers testifies to harrowing personal experiences of homophobic bullying, ranging from verbal abuse and the ruining of books and clothing to physical attacks. Perhaps the most tragic of all the episodes that he came across was that of Darren Steele, a 15-year-old comprehensive schoolboy in Northamptonshire, who committed suicide following years of such abuse. Some of the young people who wrote directly to Lord Tope spoke of their own attempts to take their own lives.
In many cases—not all, but in many—the accounts that Lord Tope received pointed to the apparent inability of teachers and adults who knew about the bullying to interfere. A constant theme in those accounts was, "Teachers say they cannot do anything because of section 28." We all know that teachers have got it wrong. We absolutely accept that the correct interpretation of section 28 should not have led to that situation, but the reality is that it has. Far better then that we remove that legislation and replace it with an acceptable alternative. I fear that some of the evidence that has been given to Lord Tope suggests that some of the teachers themselves have perhaps been homophobic. I am sure that no hon. Member would condone that.
As I have said, I accept that there have been some examples that have not been helpful—I have referred to the Avon video—but what matters above all is not the symbolism of removing section 28, but what it is replaced with, which is why it is so important that all hon. Members study carefully what has been done and said during consideration of the Learning and Skills Bill.
As the House will know, that Bill had its Third Reading on 27 June. The guidance under that legislation has three main elements that are relevant to this debate. The first is
learning the value of family life, marriage and stable and loving relationships for the nurture of children.


The second is
learning to make choices based on an understanding of difference and with an absence of prejudice.
The third is
learning the reasons for delaying sexual activity, the benefits to be gained from such delay, avoidance of unplanned pregnancy.
I hope that all hon. Members entirely agree with those words. We should be debating those elements and the regulations and guidance that will flow from that.
I support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who on 27 June sought assurances that there would be time for a parliamentary debate on the detail of the guidance. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions is not responsible for that legislation, but I hope that she will be willing to seek an assurance from her right hon. and hon. Friends that there will be such a debate, and I hope that the issue will be taken forward with cross-party support.
Reference has already been made to the difficulties that section 28 has created, such as the situation in Glasgow. It is relevant to repeat the facts of that case. Mrs. Sheena Strain, a Glasgow nurse, with the support of the Christian Institute, has brought a case against Glasgow city council for funding organisations that have given valuable support to gay and lesbians on health issues, to carers of people with HIV and AIDS and to young people in distress over their sexuality.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale rightly reminded us that section 28(2) states that that should not happen. It shows the confusion created by section 28 that such a case can be brought, and is another reason why we should repeal section 28 and replace it with appropriate alternatives.
My party's constitution says that we exist to build a society in which
no-one shall he enslaved by conformity.
My party rejects all prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and opposes all forms of entrenched inequality. We went into the last general election with a manifesto that made it clear that we wanted section 28 to be repealed. I hope that I have given a clear outline of the reasons why we want its repeal. I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote specifically on that issue. I and many of my colleagues will be in the Division Lobby to continue our support for the repeal of section 28.

Ann Keen: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in a debate on the repeal of section 28, which I, and many hon. Members, believe does nothing to foster tolerance in our society. We are half way through a new year of a new century, but yet again we are having to beg for tolerance. That is unacceptable.
Virtually all Members present on the Opposition and the Government Benches want a tolerant and fair society. I know that my colleagues support organisations that want the repeal of section 28. We take their advice and we use their knowledge. Organisations such as Barnardos, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and those that represent my own nursing profession are concerned with the physical and mental health of our young people. Surely we all remember our

teenage years—it is not that long ago—and those difficult times when we needed to talk about how we felt about difficult subjects.
Are we saying that homosexuality does not exist? Are we saying that homosexuals are not equal to other people? If we are, we should say that that is how we feel. If hon. Members feel that way, they should have the courage to say so, and not hide behind section 28 by saying that it is about protecting young people. Section 28 does nothing to protect young people. The organisations that I have mentioned would not say that section 28 did not protect young people if it did. I think that we all honour those organisations.
All our young people are entitled to have their lives valued equally. Surely all our young people in families should be allowed openly to discuss within their family how they feel. Of course they should do that privately. However, those families will require guidance and support. For some families, such discussions are an extremely difficult and stressful time. In fact, some parents do not respond positively to young people who express their sexuality. Very sadly, some families ask their young people to leave home. Many young homeless people on the streets of this city and others across the United Kingdom are there because they do not have their family's support.
Some of those young people are also afraid to go to their teachers. I am not talking about all teachers, and would not for a moment suggest that all teachers are not capable of using sensitivity and discussing privately the feelings of young people. We are, however, discussing a matter of perception.
I genuinely believe that not one hon. Member who has spoken in this debate wants to foster an intolerant or prejudiced society. However, such a society already exists. I believe that, when I spoke on this issue previously, I offended some hon. Members by saying that intolerance gives rise to actions such as David Copeland's bombing. As I also said on that occasion, however, I do not believe that any hon. Member would attempt to justify or in any way to support such an act. Nevertheless, the longer ignorance and intolerance continue, the more people will feel that they are acceptable.
Hon. Members do not in any way support racism or homophobia, because those traits are wrong and should not be supported. It is as simple as that. It is also wrong for anyone to feel intimidated. Earlier, when my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) was speaking, some of my hon. Friends tried to intervene, and other hon. Members told her not to be intimidated. I well understood why my hon. Friend wanted to continue her speech. However, was that really intimidation? What about intimidation at school, at work, or in one's own family? Surely that intimidation cannot be acceptable.
I have received very many letters about the issue, including some printed reply slips from a certain newspaper, which said, "Please do not do anything to repeal this provision." Some articles on the issue are extremely ignorant and have frightened many people. They certainly do not demonstrate the behaviour of a responsible newspaper.
Nevertheless, one man has written to me to say that, in the mid-1970s,
The climate was such that homosexuality was a taboo subject and so there was no support system for me to turn to when I was raped at 13 by a "heterosexual" man of 30. When I confided in another


pupil, I was then repeatedly seriously assaulted by gangs of older pupils and no help, guidance or support was offered by the staff. I also felt unable to involve my family, due to the general hostility and ignorance which prevailed in society at that time.

Miss Geraldine Smith: I think that every hon. Member would agree that that is a tragic story. However, what does it have to do with the repeal of section 28? Section 28 does not affect schools; it deals only with the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. It is quite a specific provision. My hon. Friend is introducing red herrings into a debate in which there have already been too many.

5 pm

Ann Keen: I do not believe that my hon. Friend's comments stand up. The issue is not a red herring if people feel that they cannot ask for advice, or when those who have responsibility for young people who have been bullied feel that they cannot deal with the problem. It is a real issue if people feel intimidated.
We have talked about sex education and teenage pregnancies and I know personally how much we need education in that area. Such education must be offered openly and with parental consent, and applied with good common sense and guidance. That is what we should provide for our young people today. We need that because, sadly, our society is not perfect. It does breed bigots and people who deliberately promote prejudice. Open discussions have changed minds on this issue. However, I cannot accept that religious groups, who claim to protect people, should also promote prejudice.
It is time that we listened to the organisations that are skilled in dealing with young people and those responsible health professionals who argue that, as well as sex education, we should provide education about drug addiction. Do we really think that such education would lead people to become drug addicts? We should tell young people about the issue, because it might affect their families, themselves, their friends or people with whom they will work, study or socialise in future. That applies in the House itself. All hon. Members are different, and we show amazing tolerance to each other. That is good, and can show the House at its best. I hope that today's debate sees the end of intolerance and that we can give families, parents and our young people at schools the opportunity to talk openly without prejudice and to protect each other while still being proud of their differences.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith). During my first Parliament, I ended up speaking out against almost my entire party on a particular issue, and it is a lonely and difficult business. I do not think that some of her hon. Friends did themselves or the House any favours by intervening on her repeatedly, sometimes before she had finished a sentence. If ever I saw intolerance, it was then.
The House is probably united in the belief that what should be taught in schools should be a matter for the governors. All hon. Members who have touched on the issue have agreed on that, and I endorse that point. I am afraid that that is the only point of consensus that I shall make this afternoon, but I shall add a few brief remarks to the excellent contributions we have already heard from hon. Members on my side of the argument.
Every so often, somebody introduces a red herring and says that the section does not make any difference. But the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is not an isolated one. There are others from various sources. Grampian health authority warned that teachers should not use
resources which advocate monogamy or marriage as a solution to HIV.
A north London health authority produced a curriculum of material, including gay material, to be used in primary schools.
The fact that nearly all the worst examples come from health authorities not covered by section 28 suggests to me that the section is making a difference. Why else should health authorities produce material of this sort, while education authorities are not? As we have been rightly reminded again and again—first by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and then by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale—section 28 applies only to education authorities.

Dr. Peter Brand: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brazier: By all means—although I do not intend to make a habit of it, as others wish to speak.

Dr. Brand: Might not the reason for health authorities' eagerness to provide information be the fact that health professionals are well aware of the misery that intolerance of homosexuality creates?

Mr. Brazier: The job of health authorities clearly relates to the health of the nation. Producing a video encouraging 13 and 14-year-olds to experiment with sex, heterosexual and homosexual, does not make an obvious contribution to the health of the nation. But the only point that I am trying to make is this: no one can seriously argue that section 28 is a dead letter or an irrelevance when organisations not covered by it are producing such material, while, on the whole, organisations covered by it—education authorities—are not. It is clearly making a difference.

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman may not know that an amendment tabled to the Learning and Skills Bill covers his point. It will ensure that health authority guidance is subject to exactly the same conditions as guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman need have no further worries about repealing section 28.

Mr. Brazier: I know that you will restrain me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I go far down the road of debate on another Bill, but as the Minister has tempted me, let me make one point in response. As she will know, I was present for a substantial chunk of the debate on that Bill, during which the efforts of a number of Opposition Members to include a specific commendation of marriage were voted down. Given the overwhelming evidence that monogamy, abstinence and marriage are the best foundations for the rearing of children—that was the context of the debate, but the same applies in a number of other contexts—I am not entirely convinced by what


she has said. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but as they know very well, the rules of order do not allow us to proceed much further with a debate on another Bill. I merely say that many people would have liked their children to be told, during debates on sex education, that marriage should have a special place when it comes to sex and the rearing of children.
My second point is that a practical issue is involved—an issue that some speakers have been unwilling to face. I refer to the balance between the framework in which teaching is given, and the need for tolerance. One issue has featured a great deal in the media over the past fortnight. It has been dealt with rather flippantly, but I am the first to say that it is a serious issue. Obesity is a significant cause of bullying in schools. The bullying of fat children is probably the most common form of bullying in schools. It is repulsive, as is every other form of bullying. Some excessively thin or anorexic children are also bullied and are subject to unpleasant jibes and names such as "beanpole".
Would any hon. Member seriously suggest, however, that overweight children should not be warned of the medical dangers of being overweight? If their condition results from a medical condition, should not they be pointed towards doctors? [Interruption.] I heard some lengthy speeches from hon. Members opposed to the new clause and did not intervene, and I hope that they in turn will hear me out.
Is it seriously suggested that pupils should not be warned of the dangers of obesity? However, given the attitude developing among some health professionals, I wonder whether teachers would not be actively discouraged from telling pupils about the considerable medical dangers posed by homosexual practices.
Labour Members who oppose the new clause talk about intolerance. Would they tolerate teachers sharing with pupils information about the medical dangers involved in homosexuality?

Dr. Harris: Many questions arise from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but will he clarify what he considers the serious medical dangers of lesbianism to be?

Mr. Brazier: I am not an expert on the medical dangers of lesbianism, but the medical dangers of sex between men are a subject on which the hon. Gentleman has heard me speak before. As a doctor, he must know many of them. For instance, more than half the cases of HIV in this country involve the relatively small proportion of people who are practising homosexuals. The dangers also include a range of bowel disorders, and blood disorders. Some of the damage caused by male homosexual practices can be caused by protected sex as well as by unprotected sex. However, I do not want to go further down that road.
As I said earlier, in a physical context a contrast must be drawn between tolerance and teaching children the full facts. However, a wider moral argument underlies the debate. It is worth sharing with the House some of the comments made by major religious leaders in this country. The Chief Rabbi, Dr. Jonathan Sacks, has stated:
I can never forget as a Jew that homosexuals were sent to Auschwitz just as Jews were. Therefore if our society has become more tolerant that is a good thing. However, the current proposal is based on a fundamental confusion between tolerance and moral

judgment. There is a real danger that the abolition of section 28 will lead to the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to marriage.
The general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain stated:
Our objection is that a small and unrepresentative pressure group appears to have seized control of the government and is attempting to change the law in order to thrust on our children—and on the children of the rest of society—lifestyles and values which most people reject.
The Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, the Rev. James Jones, said that section 28
seeks to prevent the promotion of a gay lifestyle as a moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage. It recognises that education is a formative experience and has a unique role in the development of not just individual pupils but of society as a whole.

Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brazier: I am not giving way again.

Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Brazier: I did not seek to intervene on the hon. Lady when she was speaking. I have given way four times already, and I am drawing my remarks to a close.

Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to give way.

Mr. Brazier: The quote from the bishop continues:
Governments, both Conservative and New Labour, put the family at the heart of a stable society. Section 28 is the logical out-working of that policy in the education system.
I will not quote Cardinal Winning, as it is widely known that I am a Catholic and people would say that obviously I would agree with him. However, there we have the testimony of three very important religious leaders.
It seems to me, to quote the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has left the Chamber, that to call the video that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden described at some length merely unhelpful is the understatement of the year. It is quite wrong that such material should be produced and it is quite right that it is illegal for education authorities to produce it. I support the retention of section 28.

Mr. Borrow: I have two brief points to make before my main argument. I was somewhat bemused by the comments of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and his concern for the health of gay men, in view of the situation in Glasgow, where section 28 has resulted in health work with gay men not being undertaken. I wish that some of the opponents of the repeal of section 28 would decide whether they are concerned about the health of gay men or whether they are as hostile to gay men as many of their attitudes and comments would indicate.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman gave a list of religious leaders. I wish to pay tribute to Alan Chesters, the Bishop of Blackburn. He has done tremendous work in the other


place in working with the Government to introduce guidelines on this issue. To indicate that the Anglican bishops in the other place unanimously wish to retain section 28 is quite untrue. Many Anglican bishops support the Government on this issue and I am pleased at the line being taken by my own bishop.
When clause 28 was being debated in the late 1980s, I was a newly elected member of Preston borough council. I remember a debate on the clause to which I contributed. A number of points were made as we looked forward to what would happen when the clause was implemented. First, the measure mentioned the promotion of sexuality several times. The presumption was that it was possible to turn someone who was heterosexual into someone who was attracted to, and wanted relationships with, someone of the same sex. I have yet to meet anybody who knew of such a case or had come across an example.
There seems to be a myth about the promotion of homosexuality. One of the dividing lines on the issue is between those who believe that section 28 will create more gay men and women through the promotion of homosexuality and those who look at the reality and accept that people's sexuality is something that they discover as they grow up and over which they have no control. They do have control over how they develop relationships, having discovered their sexuality, but that is a different issue.
The second part of the measure that I remember debating all those years ago said that a local authority shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
This afternoon, we have heard that section 28 no longer applies to schools. However, I remember comments made by a retired school teacher when it did apply to schools. She had spent all her working life teaching in high schools. She bitterly opposed the introduction of section 28 because she felt that it would inhibit teachers when they counselled and worked with pupils. When pupils express doubt about their sexuality to a teacher, the last thing they need is legislation that prevents a teacher from saying that to be gay is okay, and that people who grow up and find that they are gay and enter a same-sex relationship are perfectly good and decent. Over the years, teachers have felt inhibited about making such comments.
Moreover, there have been problems because of bullying. The section makes it difficult to tackle bullying. It is not just a matter of telling people to stop bullying; they need to be told why it is wrong to bully and that the person who is being bullied is just as good as they are. When legislation states that gay relationships are unacceptable, how can a teacher stop a class of children bullying one of their number? The teacher cannot tell them that it is perfectly all right for people to be gay. That was one of the key issues when the section was introduced.
I accept that the point no longer applies to the education system, because sex education and the problem of bullying are no longer covered by section 28. Proposals in the Learning and Skills Bill remove such matters from measures controlling local government. I am thus puzzled as to why the Opposition want to reintroduce such a provision on education when it has no place in education.
Part of section 28 will remain if the Tories get their way. It relates to whether a local authority can undertake measures that promote homosexuality. There have been no legal judgments on cases arising from section 28. I suspect that one of the reasons why no such case has completed its passage through the courts is the difficulty of deciding whether it is possible to promote homosexuality at all. Although there are still some people who believe that is possible, most rational people do not.
Local authorities—including Corby, Glasgow and Cardiff—are using section 28 to justify not giving support and funding to organisations in their area that assist gay and lesbian people, or are used by them. The point is simple. When I was a local authority leader, I approved grants to voluntary organisations that helped groups with a particular religious, local or other interest. Section 28 is being used to deny grants and support to community-based organisations serving the needs of gays and lesbians.
There are gay men and women in every constituency. Surely their local authorities should have the power—unfettered by section 28—to give services, either directly or through other organisations, to members of the gay community in their constituencies. However, under section 28 and given the ambiguity of the word "promotion", they are prevented from doing that.
Over the past 12 years, most local authorities have ignored section 28 when it has come to supporting gay and lesbian groups in their areas. However, because of the work of the Christian Institute and other organisations, local authorities are backing away from giving services and support to gay and lesbian people. That goes against everything that the House should stand for. It promotes division, homophobia and exclusion. If there is one thing that we in this place should be about it is promoting tolerance, equality and inclusion. I urge hon. Members to oppose the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. Peter Luff: This has been a surprisingly good debate, given the passions that the subject often arouses. I want to join virtually every Conservative Member who has spoken in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) for a very brave and convincing speech, which I for one admired.
Although I did not agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), I was grateful for what she said about everyone in the Chamber—I count myself among them—being united in the desire to build a fair and tolerant society in which minority rights are respected and protected unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary. However, we must recognise that it is our duty to reflect the views held by people outside the House. In that regard, it is right to recognise something that has not yet been articulated in the debate: that many people whom we represent are not of the view that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Even though they hold that view, they abhor discrimination against homosexuals.
That point was developed helpfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) when he quoted religious leaders. When he quoted a Muslim leader, I was alarmed to hear a rather derogatory remark from someone on the Liberal Benches about the tolerance of that religion. That is worrying. We should keep clear and open


minds about the views of all the religions in this country. We should listen to the divided Anglican Church—yes, it is divided—and to the other Churches that have a coherent and clear view.
The only jarring note struck in the debate was the earlier suggestion that those Conservative and Labour Members who support the retention of section 28 are in some sense homophobic or party to the incitement of acts of terrorism against the homosexual community. I fundamentally and completely reject that view.
As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale made clear, this is, in one sense, a narrow debate. It is about the use of taxpayers' money to promote a particular ideology or point of view. It is not about the rights or wrongs of homosexuality, but about what the state does with its resources.
Last week, I received in my postbag a letter from a doctor in my constituency who has written to the Prime Minister to express her opposition to the scrapping of section 28, and I shall be interested to see the reply that the Prime Minister sends. The letter certainly reflects the overwhelming support in my constituency for the retention of section 28. At no stage in the eight years that I have been a Member of Parliament has a head teacher expressed concern about its operation in relation to his or her school's anti-bullying policy. The Government are slaying a dragon of their own imagination to appeal to a small cosmopolitan elite; the problem does not exist. I totally reject the arguments that have been made about bullying.
The doctor in my constituency has worked with sex offenders in prisons and helped to initiate a group in Worcester to support the child victims of sexual abuse. She says:
I do have a little knowledge of the subject.
She describes herself as
a lifelong supporter of the Labour party…a parent, a doctor and a Christian.
The letter helpfully refers to the point that we are debating.
It is unfortunate that the literature that causes such concern and that has been quoted by Conservative Members often goes into unnecessarily graphic detail. The letter says:
I have seen a variety of leaflets and promotional literature originating from gay rights groups, some of which are in receipt of grants from their local authorities, which have already been issued to schools despite the existence of Section 28 as it stands at present. This material not only encourages children very frankly to experiment with a homosexual lifestyle to "determine their sexual orientation" at a time when they are very vulnerable and impressionable.
That is the important point. Children are, at a certain stage in the development of their sexuality, vulnerable and impressionable.

Mr. Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr. Borrow: rose—

Mr. Luff: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow).

Mr. Heald: Many of the representations that I have received in favour of retaining section 28 have been from

mothers with sons, who feel worried about the change. Does my hon. Friend agree with my impression that the mothers of Britain are saying no to the proposed change?

Ms Debra Shipley: Rubbish.

Ms Sally Keeble: Rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Ladies should not get so excited.

Mr. Luff: I hear the cries of "rubbish", which you rightly rebuked, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from two people on the Government Benches whom I know to be mothers. All I can say is that they are in a minority of mothers and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is right.
Before I give way to the hon. Member for South Ribble, I shall develop the point on which I think he wanted to intervene. I was quoting the doctor who said that young people can be vulnerable and impressionable. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that it is irrational to say that one can promote homosexuality. I disagree with him; it is possible to promote anything, including homosexuality.

Mr. Borrow: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not quoting his own words, but what does he understand by the term "homosexual lifestyle" in the letter that he has read out?

Mr. Luff: I do not want to be drawn into detail—this debate has been mercifully free of details—but I would have thought that the phrase is self-explanatory. I do not understand how I can expand the point. It is a life style lived by homosexuals, with the practices of homosexuals. It seems self-explanatory. I am at a loss to understand what further explanation I can give. The subject matter is well known on both sides of the House.

Dr. Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman at all troubled by the fact that no respected group of medical opinion accepts the view that a sexuality can be promoted, just as femaleness cannot be promoted? Is he at all put off his stride by the fact that organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Children's Bureau and the Royal College of Nursing are all campaigning for the abolition of section 28 because of the damage that it does to the welfare of children?

Mr. Luff: The representative bodies may take that view, but I know many medics in my constituency, including the doctor whom I am quoting, who profoundly disagree. It is common for representative bodies to be out of step with ordinary members. If anything, the hon. Gentleman's point encourages me in my viewpoint.
The third question that we must ask is: what are the risks of repealing section 28? I and many hon. Members take a view about the importance of promoting conventional family life, and believe that promoting homosexuality risks undermining it. As I have explained, we believe that young children can be impressionable and open to pressures at the wrong time in their lives.
I happen to believe that there is too much pressure on young people, whatever their sexuality, to engage in early sexual experimentation—homosexual or heterosexual.


Indeed, in the previous Parliament, I led a discussion from the Government Benches on a Bill to control the outrageous nature of teenage magazines for girls. I received great support on both sides of the House, for which I was grateful. We should be reluctant to promote anything that encourages excessive sexual experimentation.
My constituent, the doctor, says:
Repeal would open the door, not just to the very proper factual and unbiased teaching about homosexuality which should form part of a sex education programme, but to this very overt encouragement—
that is, encouragement to experiment.
More importantly still, has the likelihood of this access to children being used by covert paedophiles been fully thought through? I ask this as someone who has spent time working in prison with sex offenders. Surely we would all wish to protect our children from this kind of risk?
I doubt very much whether adequate procedures to prevent such exploitation could ever be guaranteed.

Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman please clarify whether he is suggesting that sex offenders come under the category of homosexuals? That is certainly the impression that he is giving, and I am sure that he would not wish to do so.

Mr. Luff: No, of course I would not wish to give that impression. I am citing a consequence feared by a doctor who has worked in prisons with sex offenders. However, I am grateful for the hon. Lady's clarification.
Finally, my constituent raises a fundamental objection that goes to the heart of section 28 and the debate. She says:
We should be very wary of using public funds to promote any kind of ideology, whatever its origin, but especially one where the targeted group is so young and vulnerable.
That is the heart of the argument. All forms of discrimination are abhorrent. We do not have to promote Islam or Judaism to urge tolerance and understanding of Muslims and Jews. We do not have to promote homosexuality to fight prejudice, intolerance and bullying. All bullying in schools is abhorrent, whether on the grounds of race, obesity—as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said—wearing glasses, having red hair, being too clever or sexual orientation. Keeping section 28 would not be a bully's charter: it is misleading to argue that it would. The House should vote for the continuation of the section with absolute confidence.

Mr. Patrick Hall: The argument for section 28 and its retention, which the previous Government made in 1988, rests on the contention that homosexuality was being promoted deliberately among young children in schools. Of course, if that were true, I would agree that section 28 had a purpose. That contention has only one flaw: there was no evidence then that homosexuality was being promoted in schools, and there is no evidence now.
Let me deal briefly with a matter that has been raised mostly by Conservative Members today, but which has been raised by others in previous debates in this House and in the other place. It is claimed that an illegal and irresponsible way has been found to get pro-homosexual materials into schools in order to corrupt impressionable young children. Many who wish to retain section 28

have claimed, usually in the media, that if it were removed, a floodgate would be opened and such promotional material would re-emerge.
I believe that that material has never been promoted in schools. The whole thing was brought about by the Conservative Government setting up a false target to generate populist acclaim. They wanted to create an enemy, shoot it down and claim that they were doing a good job. That technique is well known and well tried in politics, and does a great deal of harm because it hurts people.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Did the hon. Gentleman visit the exhibition laid on by Lady Young in a Committee Room earlier this year? I assure him that that material exists and, if it exists in such quantities, I presume that there is an intention to use it.

Mr. Hall: I did not visit the exhibition. However, what I am about to say may deal with some of the matters that may have been in the exhibition.
From the work that I have done, it appears that two kinds of material have been referred to in debates here and in the media in the last few months. One is a group of videos prepared by the Terrence Higgins Trust to promote safe sex among gay men. I have not viewed any of that material, but I understand that it is sexually explicit and is specifically designed for adults. It is not used in schools and, given the considerably reduced incidence in the spread of HIV and AIDS compared with forecasts a decade or so ago, it is probable that such materials have been successful.
The other group of material that has been alluded to includes, as we heard today, the teachers' pack and video "Beyond a Phase", prepared by the Avon health authority. The video is subtitled "Talking about Gay and Lesbian Relationships" and the accompanying document is subtitled "A Practical Guide to Challenging Homophobia in Schools". That material has been prepared for teachers; it is not for promotion among children. I have a copy of the document and, like the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), I have watched the video. She and I have totally different interpretations of that video, and I think that it is necessary to state on the record that there is a different view of it.
In my opinion, that 14-minute film is humane, thought provoking and socially responsible. Of course, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, it could have been done better, but it has been misrepresented. It presents young people, whom I believe to be between the ages of 13 and 16, talking honestly and openly about discovering their sexuality. Many of them say that they have discovered their homosexuality. They talk about the pain, confusion, unhappiness and loneliness of realising that their sexuality places them in a small minority imprisoned by social prejudice. They talk about the bullying, harassment and abuse that they have received from some people. They explain how all that interferes with their studies and their ability to form friendships and relationships. Those children are speaking for themselves, and they offer insights into the fear and ignorance that presents them as unnatural and dehumanised.
At the very end of the film, one young person comments that he had thought about experimenting with boys and girls to discover his real feelings. That comment has been


mentioned several times today; it has been mentioned in another place and in the press. It has deliberately been inaccurately reported as characterising the purpose of the whole film as advocating experimentation for all. Having seen the video, I know that that is a mischievous travesty of the truth.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will refer to the Government guidance for schools on sex and relationship education, which has already been referred to. Having seen the principles that the Department for Education and Employment set out some months ago, I believe that the approach that has been adopted is mature, balanced and caring. There is an urgent need for open information on these matters and for clearer, better sex education in this country.
We have not performed well in that respect, as is suggested by the fact that Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the European Union and the evidence that children are becoming sexually active too young. Evidence from countries where there is more effective sex education shows that there has been an accompanying reduction in early sexual activity and that there are far fewer teenage pregnancies.

Mr. David Prior: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hall: No, I do not have time.
Section 28, or section 2A as it is now called, gets in the way of the serious, necessary task of educating, bringing up and guiding all our children. It is born of prejudice; it seeks to perpetuate prejudice, and it has no place in a decent society.

Ms Armstrong: This has been an interesting debate. It is always difficult to have a reasoned and measured debate on this issue in the House. Among those participating in the debate, only the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and myself were present in the House in 1988 when clause 28 was added to a local government Bill. Because it was added to such a Bill, it seems perfectly logical to repeal it in another local government Bill. In my reading of those early debates and my memory of the feeling in the House at the time there was a lot of bigotry and prejudice driving the decision to include clause 28 in that Bill. That meant that, whatever the detail of the clause and the Bill, people thought at the time that the measure was homophobic, and that has had an effect.
5.45 m
We have heard about bullying from hon. Members on both sides of the argument. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked whether we think that section 28 should be repealed because it is not important, or because it has had such a strong effect. In a sense, the answer is both. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made it clear that section 28 should not have had an effect on the way in which teachers deal with bullying that is driven by homophobia. It should have had no effect on how children are treated in schools, but, for too many, it has had a very damaging effect on them as individuals.
Section 28 has bred the feeling that it is all right to have a go at homosexuals. None of us in the House has condoned that view today. Deciding whether that happens is inevitably a matter of judgment, but the evidence that

has been quoted by my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and by the hon. Member for Bath should at least be sufficient to make us all think about the actual effect of section 28, whatever its intention or whatever we read into its wording. If it has affected some people in a way that we say is intolerable, we must ask whether it is good legislation and whether it should exist.
The Government have made it absolutely clear that we do not think that section 28 is good legislation and that we are committed to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, as it is properly called. We believe that the official Opposition are attempting to reinstate a flawed and offensive provision. Those in favour of its retention have argued that children are at risk, and I suspect that that argument has been used in most of the letters that hon. Members have received in support of its retention. Indeed, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has used that argument. However, the framework that the Government have put in place makes it absolutely clear to everyone, especially to those of us in the House, that the provision can have no effect on children in schools.
The arguments about how the previous Government dealt with such matters have been made, while ignoring the real changes that have taken place in the relationship between schools and local education authorities since the original legislation was passed. Given the safeguards that we are introducing under the Learning and Skills Bill and through our guidance on sex and relationship education, that argument is dishonest. It is clear that children in schools will be protected by the framework that we shall put in place under the Learning and Skills Bill.
Children are be protected from anything that local authorities or health authorities might seek to do in schools because we have placed the responsibility firmly on teachers and school governors. We have made it clear that LEAs have no power to determine sex education in schools. The Learning and Skills Bill states that bullying is unacceptable in any form—whether it is racial, the result of a pupil's appearance or related to sexual orientation.
Concern was expressed that by removing the measure we are saying that the promotion of homosexuality is all right. Local authorities are governed by Acts of Parliament, which make clear what they are able and not able to do, and the promotion of homosexuality is not within their scope anyway so that argument also falls. Some people say, "Local authorities and schools should not highlight any form of sexuality." I understand where they are coming from, but the problem is that homosexuality is a form of sexuality that has attracted bigotry and prejudice and highlighting it through section 28 has legitimised bigotry and prejudice in a way that no one in the House would tolerate. Therefore, the Government are determined to press ahead.
We do not want the House to promote bigotry and intolerance. We want to support everyone, recognising and celebrating difference and diversity while making sure that none of us has any truck with intolerance and bigotry. I hope that the House will vote in such way tonight.

Mr. Waterson: I do not want to revisit the arguments—I agree with my hon. Friends; this has been


a good debate, marred only by the early intervention of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw)—nor do I want to review all the speeches, although in their way they were classics on the subject, whichever side of the argument they supported. One cannot help but feel that the debate will not get an inch of coverage anywhere in the outside world, although it deserves coverage as the arguments have been put in an exemplary fashion. With no disrespect to other hon. Members who participated, I must single out the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), who made a speech of great courage and conviction, in equal measure. She deserves to be congratulated on that.
We still strongly believe that the Government are wrong: they have embarked on a course that could end in disaster in terms of lack of public support and that sends entirely the wrong message to schools and local authorities. We say that much more in sorrow than in anger, but in the hope and conviction that their lordships—who, as I said earlier, are often much more in tune with the popular mood than are the Government—will reinstate section 28 and, indeed, the amendment that forms part of the new clause.
I am conscious that the House would like a clear-cut vote on the central issue—section 28, or section 2A as it has been called. Although I shall press amendment No. 7 to a vote, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 74, line 2, leave out clause 98.—[Mr. Waterson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 305

Division No. 253]
[5.54 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Amess, David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Nigel


Benton, Joe
Fallon, Michael


Bercow, John
Flight, Howard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Dr Liam


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Brady, Graham
Gibb, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Breed, Colin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gray, James


Browning, Mrs Angela
Green, Damian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John


Burnett, John
Grieve, Dominic


Burns, Simon
Hague, Rt Hon William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hammond, Philip



Hawkins, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, John


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Collins, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran James
Hunter, Andrew





Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Jenkin, Bernard
Ruffley, David


Key, Robert
St Aubyn, Nick


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Letwin, Oliver
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Loughton, Tim
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Swayne, Desmond


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Syms, Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Thompson, William


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Tyrie, Andrew


Major, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Maples, John
Walter, Robert


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Waterson, Nigel


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wells, Bowen


May, Mrs Theresa
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Norman, Archie
Willetts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


Prior, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Randall, John



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Robertson, Laurence
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brand, Dr Peter


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Alexander, Douglas
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allan, Richard
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Allen, Graham
Browne, Desmond


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Buck, Ms Karen


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burden, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Burgon, Colin


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burstow, Paul


Atkins, Charlotte
Butler, Mrs Christine


Austin, John
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Baker, Norman
Cable, Dr Vincent


Ballard, Jackie
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Battle, John
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Bayley, Hugh



Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Begg, Miss Anne
Caplin, Ivor


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Caton, Martin


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Chaytor, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Chidgey, David


Berry, Roger
Clapham, Michael


Best, Harold
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Betts, Clive
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blackman, Liz



Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Borrow, David
Clelland, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bradshaw, Ben
Cooper, Yvette


Brake, Tom
Corbyn, Jeremy






Cotter, Brian
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Crausby, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jamieson, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jenkins, Brian


Cummings, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)



Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Darvill, Keith
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keetch, Paul


Denham, John
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dismore, Andrew
Kemp, Fraser


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Doran, Frank



Drew, David
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drown, Ms Julia
Kidney, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kirkwood, Archy


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Lammy, David


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Ennis, Jeff
Leslie, Christopher


Fearn, Ronnie
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flynn, Paul
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lock, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCabe, Steve


Fyfe, Maria
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Galloway, George
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McDonnell, John


Gerrard, Neil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gidley, Sandra
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
Mactaggart, Fiona


Goggins, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Gunnell, John
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Moffatt, Laura


Harvey, Nick
Moore, Michael


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moran, Ms Margaret


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John



Hill, Keith
Mountford, Kali


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hopkins, Kelvin
Norris, Dan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Oaten, Mark


Howells, Dr Kim
Öpik, Lembit


Hoyle, Lindsay
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Humble, Mrs Joan
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Perham, Ms Linda





Pickthall, Colin
Stunell, Andrew


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pollard, Kerry



Pond, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tipping, Paddy


Quinn, Lawrie
Todd, Mark


Rapson, Syd
Touhig, Don


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Trickett, Jon


Rendel, David
Truswell, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruddock, Joan
Tyler, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sawford, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watts, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Webb, Steve


Shipley, Ms Debra
White, Brian


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wills, Michael


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Spellar, John
Wood, Mike


Squire, Ms Rachel
Woodward, Shaun


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woolas, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stevenson, George
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wyatt, Derek


Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived

Clause 100

WALES

Amendment made: No. 192, in page 74, line 40, at end insert—
'(3) Any reference in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 to an Act which is amended by this Act is to be treated as referring to that Act as amended by this Act.
(4) Subsection (3) does not affect the power to make further Orders varying or omitting that reference.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 203, in page 87, line 33, at end insert—
'. In section 86 of that Act (declaration by local authority of vacancy in office in certain cases), in subsection (1)(b) after "1998" there is inserted "or section 76 of the Local Government Act 2000".


. In section 87(1) of that Act (date of casual vacancies)—
(a) after paragraph (e) there is inserted—
(ee) in the case of a disqualification under section 76 of the Local Government Act 2000, on the expiration of the ordinary period allowed for making an appeal or application with respect to the relevant decision under that section or, if an appeal or application is made, on the date on which that appeal or application is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails by reason of non-prosecution thereof;",
(b) in paragraph (f), for "(e)" there is substituted "(ee)".

No. 204, in page 89, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) After that subsection there is inserted—
(8A) Any reference in this section to the duties of a monitoring officer imposed by this section, or to the duties of a monitoring officer under this section, shall include a reference to the functions which are conferred on a monitoring officer by virtue of Part III of the Local Government Act 2000."'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 5

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 205, in page 90, line 31, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 100D(2), "of the list, or".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 102

COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 211, in page 75, line 40, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State may by order provide—
( ) for paragraphs 17 and 18 of Schedule 3 to come into force before the time appointed by subsection (4),
( )for paragraph 26 of Schedule 4 to come into force before the time appointed by that subsection,
( )for any of the provisions of Part III of this Act so far as they relate to police authorities in Wales to come into force before the time appointed by that subsection, or
( )for any of the other provisions mentioned in that subsection to come into force in relation to England before the time appointed by that subsection.
The National Assembly for Wales may by order provide—
( ) for paragraph 26 of Schedule 4 to come into force before the time appointed by subsection (4), or
( ) for any of the other provisions mentioned in that subsection to come into force in relation to Wales before the time appointed by that subsection.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 103

SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 193, in page 76, line 9, leave out "This section and".

No. 194, in page 76, line 10, at beginning insert "This section".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am delighted that we can move to Third Reading. We had a good day's debate yesterday. My preference would be that we had spent as long on other parts of the Bill as we have just spent on section 28, but we knew that the House wanted to debate that at some length.
The Bill has passed through extensive debate in Committee as well as on Report yesterday and today, following its Second Reading in the House before Easter. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have participated in all stages of consideration of the Bill for their constructive contributions and enduring interest in such an important subject.
Those who have had an opportunity to read the report of the Committee stage will have noticed the great conversion of the official Opposition to local government. They are no longer threatening to get rid of it entirely; they want to embrace local government. We heard positive statements in Committee, which were endorsed by the Leader of the official Opposition last week. Last night, however, the right hon. Gentleman had a go at local education authorities—the education function being an important part of local government—so I am a little confused.
The Bill and the Local Government Act 1999 are designed to improve local communities and the lives of local people in England and Wales.
All our debates and discussions on the Bill have shown that we can now say, in a way that we could not during the previous Administration, that the majority of hon. Members believe that local government has an important part to play in a modern society. Whatever our differences on how that should be achieved, most of us have that goal in common. That has been reflected in the spirit of co-operation and partnership in which most of our discussions have been conducted. I hope that that approach will be reflected further in the way that the legislation is implemented locally. That is the intention of the Bill, which rests on local partnership, local accountability and opportunities for local people to have a better say in how their councils are run and what they do.
With the coming together of this Bill and the previous Local Government Act, we begin to see an opportunity for local government to be much more accountable, to be able to develop much better services and service delivery, and to involve local people in discussion on how to do that most effectively, in the knowledge of who is taking decisions and how those people can be held to account. Local government now has a framework which will allow it to be re-established, not simply as something that politicians think is important, but so that local people know that it changes and considerably enhances their opportunities and quality of life.
The Bill's passage through the House has provoked lively debate around the key issues, which we discussed again yesterday. Hon. Members have taken the opportunity to refine, clarify and generally improve some of the main provisions. The Government have listened to the points raised, and we have now made more far-reaching changes to strengthen and clarify the Bill, as we promised in Committee. I am happy to report that we now have a strong, robust and rigorous Bill.
Effective local government is a vital part of the fabric of the dynamic, democratic, fair and inclusive society that people want to see.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I apologise for being absent earlier, but I was on Northern


Ireland business, as they say. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in relation to the dismantling of the infamous section 28, the Bill is entirely compatible with the legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament some three or four weeks ago?

Ms Armstrong: I can confirm that the Bill repeals section 28. That is no longer part of Britain's legislative framework. In that sense, the Bill is compatible with legislation passed in Scotland. The Bill requires further confirmation in the Lords, but I am determined that we will see a dynamic, democratic, fair and inclusive society, with local government at its heart. That is vital to securing the quality of life that people deserve and have a right to expect. The Bill, as amended, will put local government back at the heart of local communities, giving to local authorities and the local people whom they serve the rights and responsibilities that fit this age, this century.
As I have said, linking all those features gives local government a strength to which, in some areas, it has not yet woken up. The power to respond to the economic, environmental and social needs of a local authority's area, linked to the duty to prepare community plans, will radically change the way in which local government works, and ensure that local people feel that local government is working with them on their behalf in a way that has not been possible in recent years.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Waterson: I was about to say that this is the last time that we shall debate the Bill in this House, but on reflection, I would not bank on it. I echo the Minister in expressing my gratitude to all members of the Committee, who approached the matter constructively and worked hard, even if, in the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), it was a paltry 40 hours of our lives. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), who worked hard with me and my incredibly heavyweight Back Benchers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), both of whom brought enormous experience to the Committee's deliberations.
I recognise all our old friends in the Minister's speech. With the exception of holistic, they were all there—modernisation, partnership, accountability, inclusive, dynamic. That is the new Labour-speak which we have all learned to get used to in Committee.
The Minister talked about lively debate, but I suspect that that was unconscious humour. No matter how lively the debate was in Committee, it was as nothing compared with the lively debate on the Government Back Benches and in Labour local government.
The Minister said that the Government had listened. Let us be charitable and assume that she has indeed listened to all representations, not just those from the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats—on a good day—the Labour campaign for open local government, and so on. She may well have listened, but she has hardly taken a blind bit of notice of anything that any of us have said to her. There have been a few minor concessions, for which we are duly grateful, but nothing of any great substance, at least in this House.
When the Minister talked about a strong, robust and rigorous Bill, I assumed that she was talking about some other Bill. I am almost embarrassed at the Heath Robinson nature of the Bill that we are sending to their Lordships. I hope that they can make some sense of it.
I thought that the Minister was being slightly optimistic, although I know that it is in her nature, when she talked about confirmation by their Lordships. That may be pitching it a bit high, but I shall return to that.
I should have thought that some Labour Members might be a little disturbed by the Minister's suggestion that the Bill puts local government back at the heart of local communities. Any number of Labour Members have served on their local councils with distinction, some, with distinction or otherwise, as leaders of their local councils, all of whom would probably resent the characterisation that, up until now, when this brilliant modernisation agenda burst upon an unsuspecting world, they were not at the heart of their local community. That is a gross calumny on local councillors throughout Britain, of all political parties and of none, who have for many years worked for their local communities, often with minimal reward—certainly not reward of the dimensions of that accorded to some Labour leaders around the country under the modernisation agenda.
Even if the Minister is not listening to me, I have genuine sympathy with her. This has been a difficult few weeks for the Government, not least for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The so-called modernisation policy is coming apart in the Minister's hands. Labour Back Benchers are queueing up to rubbish the Bill, and it has fewer and fewer supporters in local government.
The Government have had a bad few weeks. The only ray of sunshine is provided by the fact that Ken Follett, unlike Bernie Ecclestone, is not asking for his money back—as far as I know. Labour Back Benchers have attacked the Government; for example, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) spoke of self-inflicted wounds and uncertainty and confusion about section 28. His lack of faith in the Government's direction is surprising, because I understand that he has been appointed to Labour's parliamentary campaign team. He obviously brings to his new role a healthy scepticism about the entire project. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) likened the Government to a mediaeval monarchy. A range of luvvies, Government supporters and millionaires are queueing up to complain about the course of events.
The Government suffered massive losses in local government in May—hardly a ringing endorsement of their policies in local government or centrally.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am usually able to give Front-Bench spokesmen a little leeway, but we must talk about the content of the Bill. We are considering Third Reading.

Mr. Waterson: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important to note that when issues arising from the Bill were discussed last week in Bournemouth at the Local Government Association conference, my right hon. Friend


the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and I had good receptions, but the Minister received the Women's Institute treatment and was slow hand-clapped.

Ms Armstrong: I had a good reception.

Mr. Waterson: I can only suppose that it was good compared with her reception by the Labour group at the Local Government Association conference.
The Bill remains an embarrassing shambles. The Minister referred to the wonderful new power that local authorities are to receive. We broadly welcome that, and our approach to it in Committee was constructive, as I am sure that the Minister will concede. However, the fundamental problem remains: there is no cash to go with it. The Government, who have already cut funding for many councils, are providing no extra money.

Ms Armstrong: I do not want to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House. Does he accept that the previous Government cut local government funding in real terms by 4.3 per cent. in the three years before the general election, whereas in the three years after that election we increased local government funding in real terms by 6.8 per cent.? I should not like the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House.

Mr. Waterson: No, I would not wish to do that. However, perhaps the Minister will explain why my constituents are paying 8 per cent. more council tax this year than last year. We can all bandy figures about, but people, especially in rural areas and shire counties, are feeling the pinch under the Government.
I allowed the Minister to intervene because I believed that she would deal with my point about the new power. Despite her protestations in Committee, there is no new money to back it up. Not only will the Government refuse to grant more money to accompany the power, but they have made it crystal clear in the House of Commons and the House of Lords that councils that try to raise extra cash to support the new power will fall foul of the capping regime. We still have such a regime.
We broadly welcome changes to the system of standards and conduct. The Committee, to a man and woman, welcomed the abolition of surcharging, which everyone in local government views as a blunt instrument. Although we made detailed points about the actual provisions, we welcome the changes that the Bill outlines.
Let us consider the provisions that apply to elections. The Government have a bizarre notion that the solution to historically declining turnouts in local elections is to make people vote more often—that an annual opportunity to vote for every council will somehow make electors more enthusiastic about voting. At the same time, the Government are tinkering again with the voting system for directly elected mayors and proposing the same system as was used in the London mayoral elections. Despite the bally-hoo, the turnout for that election was only 33 per cent.—compared to an average 30 per cent. in local government elections—and there was a greater proportion of spoilt ballot papers than usual.
Structures, and the Government's insistence on imposing their blueprint on local government throughout the country, constituted the biggest issue on which we

spent the most time. I repeat that discussing even three options is pretty rich, because for the majority of councils, the only realistic option is a cabinet system with an executive/scrutiny split to replace the current committee system. The Government have the incredible notion that, by tinkering with local government systems and structures which are, on the whole, of little interest to the residents of any council area, they will somehow increase public confidence in local government, improve turnouts and, to employ a phrase that the Minister used often, improve quality of life. That simply will not happen. The only way to achieve that is by returning more powers to local government and thus ensuring that those elected make genuine choices for their community. That will make people keener to go out and vote.
The Minister did not mention her so-called fourth option. That is just as well. I believe that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders)—it may have been someone else—dubbed it "option 3A". That is probably overstating the case. The so-called fourth option that the Government have devised is nothing of the sort. It simply requires councils to make proposals for an executive; the Secretary of State will decide whether they can proceed. The option will apply to a group of councils, not individual councills. Surely Ministers realise that there is no great enthusiasm in local government for the structures that the Government want to impose, but enormous support for the current committee system or some variation on, or updated version of, it. I do not understand why Ministers are burying their heads in the sand.
We had a good, substantial debate about secrecy yesterday. I simply reiterate our position, which has never changed from start to finish of our proceedings. Under successive Conservative Governments, beginning with a private Member's Bill introduced by Margaret Thatcher, we established a code that ensured the rights of the public and the media to attend and get details of council and committee meetings. It would be simple for the Government to say that those rules should apply to local government cabinet meetings. Yet pushed this way and that by the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, newspaper editors, the media generally and their rebellious Back Benchers, Ministers have evolved a complex, bureaucratic system for dealing with cabinet meetings. It is unnecessary and confusing, and it will probably be difficult to police. The system is not even complete. Only last Monday, the Government sent out draft regulations for consultation in a panic because of the pressure that was being brought to bear on them.
We have evidence of the success of the Government's policy on directly elected mayors. It has been a great success in London. The Government ended up with the wrong candidate, and the wrong candidate won the election. Any rational Government would have piloted the idea somewhere, but this Government chose London for the pilot scheme. I do not need to rub in the extent of the failure of that experiment.
There is a bigger debate still about the future of local government, which is beyond the ambit of the Bill but is still relevant. That is the question of "Front Line First"—how local government is to be funded and whether the Government intend to try to avoid using local government structures wherever possible.
I hope that it will be helpful to the House—

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is on the issue of "Front Line First" and whether local authorities are to


be bypassed. Given his intervention in my speech earlier this evening, will he clarify whether I was right in ascribing to the leader of the Conservative party that party's intention significantly to remove the current powers of local education authorities?

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is now putting to me a rather different point. He talked about our abolishing local education authorities, and I am happy to reiterate that we have no intention of doing so. However, we intend to redefine their role. I do not think that any LEA should feel secure in having any future under the Government's plans once they are unveiled.
I will not be inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading. As I have made clear, there are some sensible provisions in the Bill which we would not like to see lost. The Bill still needs amending in some significant ways, and I shall return to that. To use the words of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who spoke yesterday, this is a centralising Government when it comes to local government. To use also the words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), the Government have a contempt for local government.
To return to the meeting of the Local Government Association in Bournemouth last week, we had the non-appearance of the Deputy Prime Minister, although I understand that he found time to go to the British soaps awards. We had a panel discussion involving the hon. Member for Torbay. [Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and the Regions asks from a sedentary position about the whereabouts of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). The answer is that he was at Bournemouth. The right hon. Lady probably did not notice because she was being slow hand-clapped by the audience.
As I have said, we had a panel discussion, at which I was present on behalf of my party, as the hon. Member for Torbay was for his. No Minister of senior or junior rank was produced by the Government. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions may be short of funds from the Treasury, but it is not short of Ministers. I do not want to embarrass the Minister too much because she experienced the slow hand-clapping of the audience.
The fact is that the Government have wholly lost the plot on local government matters. They are obsessed with their notions, which have less and less to do with the real world and more and more to do with the liberal elite of which we spoke earlier.
The Bill will go to the House of Lords. I hope and expect that their Lordships will stand firm on the two crucial issues of section 28 and the so-called fourth option. That is a real option and choice for local government. We can only guess what will happen first. Will there be two substantial U-turns by the Government on the Bill—or the loss of the Bill—or will there be an invitation to London's Mayor to rejoin the Labour party?

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I shall be as quick as possible because I am aware that time is running out. I reiterate that the reforms set out in the Bill are not new ideas. They originated in 1991 in the consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities. However,

the reforms are revolutionary as regards the way in which local councils will operate in future and take decisions. They will replace the traditional committee system with a cabinet scrutiny split.
Early experiments have not been a great success. There have been examples of decisions being taken in secret and of small cabals taking decisions. Some local newspapers have been up in arms because they have not been able to get information. We took the Minister's assurance in Committee that that was because the Bill was, obviously, not on the statute book. Those things should not occur when, as is to be hoped, the Bill takes its place on the statute book. Time will tell.
There has been welcome movement by the Government during the Bill's passage. There has been a relaxation of the narrow, prescribed structures that were set out originally. There has been an important concession on freedom of information. There has been clarification on pensions. There has been protection for councillors serving on outside bodies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I were pleased to serve in Committee and to have contributed constructively, I believe, to the Bill's passage. It is not the Bill that we would have drafted in the first place. The freedoms that local councils need are not necessarily in the Bill, although there is some movement towards that. However, we are pleased about the power of competence in terms of economic, environmental and social well-being. In a sense, we are probably closer to the sort of local government that we would want to see, even if there is not the absolute power of competence and financial freedom that we would wish the Bill to have.
We await the Government's intentions on finance as well as the comprehensive spending review. Some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) were correct. Many new duties have gone to local government, but whether these moves will be a success will depend on whether local government has the necessary funds. It does not necessarily have the necessary fund-raising powers to make things happen. In conclusion, we will not impede the Bill's progress at this stage.

Mr. Patrick Hall: I am pleased to make a short contribution to the debate, both as a Member who considered the Bill in Committee and as a former councillor on Bedfordshire county council. I found the experience of both informative and generally enjoyable. One position lasted eight years and the other 40 hours, as has been mentioned several times. Having gone through all that, I remain a strong supporter of local government. I hold it in high esteem because I believe it to be an essential part of a civilised society and a healthy democracy. That is where I come from with regard to the Bill and the reform of local government.
Local councils have served the country well for about 120 years. They have changed many times during that period. My approach to the Bill and to local government reform is that we should add to and improve what we already have. I am convinced, having been involved in the passage of the Bill, that we will reform local government in a progressive direction.
I do not share the reluctance of some to let go of the committee system. When I first served as a councillor some years ago, everything was done through committees


and the full council. I quickly came to appreciate—as a social services spokesperson, I became part of the system—that the real decisions were often taken outside open and formal meetings. They were taken usually by leaders, sometimes alone with chief officers, and often through private party group meetings. They were whipped through committee, often with very little member participation. I see no need for anyone to feel threatened by the proposed executive scrutiny structure.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred more than once in Committee and on the Floor of the House to arrangements on Bedfordshire country council. Perhaps he did so because he knows that Bedfordshire is a very good place and that I represent part of it. Also, he knows that the council is controlled by the Conservatives with a majority of one. However, it has an all-party executive and a scrutiny committee. That committee is chaired by a senior Labour councillor, and the system seems to work. I understand on good authority that some Conservative back-bench councillors are becoming annoyed about the prominence that the Labour councillor who chairs the scrutiny committee enjoys on the full council. That might be a sign that scrutiny can work. I do not see it as a second-class function to be conducted by second-class councillors. It is an integral part of the process.
The movement that the Government have made on the openness of meetings and access to information is genuine and welcome. It was rather churlish of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, today and yesterday, to criticise the Government for listening to Members. He spent a good deal of time introducing amendments, and when improvements are accepted, he seems to think them not good enough.
The changes that have been put together and presented by the Government prove not only that hon. Members have been doing their job on the Bill, but that the Government are doing their job. I have no doubt that we are creating the means for local councils to do their job in all the years ahead.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me and for the way in which the Government have moved in the

past 24 hours, particularly on openness in local government. They have clarified some issues, not least when the Minister reassured us last night that decisions that are made collectively in a council's executive should be in public, even if the decisions that arise out of them are made by an individual member.
That is important. My constituents do not mind so much where the decision is made, but they want to see open discussion of the closure of an old people's homes, the new level of rents, or the opening hours of a public library—important things that touch their lives. The Minister has clarified that; it is very welcome and I am grateful.
I am grateful for and welcome the Minister's remarks on Third Reading, which I took as positive remarks, about local government and local authorities. In my experience, local authorities have not felt over the past 20 years that central Government really believed in them, or were on their side. That has been as true since the last election as it was before it. However, with those remarks by the Minister, let us hope that the Bill is the start of a new relationship between central Government and local authorities—a new, much more positive relationship. I fear, however, that the Government will need to look again at the speed at which they are moving on local government in relation to housing and education. Until those things are clarified, local authorities will not feel that the Government believe that they can deliver and do a good job within the new structure that they are forming by means of the Bill.
Local authorities are, of course, variable, as are local councillors. Many are far from perfect, but local democracy is essential for the government of this country. People want to know whom they are electing and who is making decisions, and they want those people to be accountable to them. However good services are through agencies, that is not the same as having locally elected people making decisions at a local level. With that underpinning the new Bill, and the Minister's positive remarks about the future of local government, many of us will be happy to see how the Bill works, particularly if it will be the start of a new and more positive relationship between central and local government.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Committee, considered.

Clause 25

CINEMAS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 28, line 1, leave out "(7)" and insert "(6A)".—[Ms Buck.]

Clause 41

APPEALS UNDER PART V

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 44, line 26, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1) above".

No. 3, in page 44, line 31, at end insert—
'(3) An appeal by either party against the decision of the magistrates' court under this section may be made to the Crown Court.'.

No. 4, in page 44, line 32, after first "court" insert—
'or to the Crown Court'.—[Ms Buck.]

Clause 43

SEIZURE UNDER PART V

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 45, line 4, after "street" insert—
'to which this Part of this Act applies'.—[Ms Buck.]

Clause 44

DESIGNATING RESOLUTIONS UNDER PART V

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 46, line 25, leave out "designating".

No. 7, in page 46, line 27, leave out from second "a" to "shall" in line 28 and insert "resolution, the resolution".

No. 8, in page 46, line 32, leave out "under this section".—[Ms Buck.]

Clause 48

BUS LANES

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 48, line 40, at beginning insert—
'Section 4 (Penalty charge notices under Part II) of and'.

No. 10, in page 48, line 42, leave out "is" and insert "are"—[Ms Buck.]

Schedule 2

AMENDMENTS TO SCHEDULE 1 (ENFORCEMENT NOTICES, ETC., UNDER PART II (BUS LANES) OF THIS ACT) TO THE LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1996

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 63, line 2, after "TO" insert—

'SECTION 4 (PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES UNDER PART II) OF AND'.

No. 12, in page 63, line 3, at end insert—
'A1. In subsection (2) of section 4, after "with respect to a vehicle" the words", by the owner of the vehicle," are inserted.'.

No. 13, in page 63, line 12, leave out "thereto".

No. 14, in page 63, line 12, after "notice" insert "or".

No. 15, in page 63, line 20, leave out "4" and insert "(4)".

No. 16, in page 63, line 21, leave out from "out" to end of line 22.

No. 17, in page 63, line 22, at end insert—
'(e) after sub-paragraph (4)(b) insert ";or';
(f) the following sub-paragraph is substituted for sub-paragraph (4)(c)—
(c) that at the time the alleged breach of such order or regulations took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent or the owner.";'.

No. 18, in page 63, line 23, leave out "(4)(c),".

No. 19, in page 63, line 33, after "11" insert "of Schedule 1".—[Ms Buck.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Ms Karen Buck: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
May I spend a few minutes explaining a little about the Bill? I shall seek to be brief.
Although the Bill is technically promoted by Westminster city council, the Association of London Government has played a key role in promoting and steering the legislation through on behalf of all the boroughs, except the London borough of Barnet, which, for its own reasons, chose not to participate in the promotion of the Bill. However, Barnet has since written to the ALG to say that, when a further Bill is promoted, it would like the provisions of the current Bill to be applied to Barnet. As a result, I can say that the Bill is unanimously supported by the London boroughs.
The Bill has been given full and proper consideration in both Houses. In the House of Lords, there was a debate on Second Reading—which is uncommon for private Bills these days. Because there were petitions against the Bill, it was considered by a Select Committee. The Bill was also considered in detail by the Unopposed Bills Committee in the House of Lords. Reports on the Bill were submitted by the Home Office and by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. In this House, petitions were again deposited against the Bill, so it was considered in detail by a Select Committee. The Bill was unopposed on Second Reading. The Bill has therefore received intensive scrutiny from both Houses.
The Bill is what is generally known as a general powers Bill, in the sense that it deals with a number of subjects. Its provisions have been through a variety of different guises. Since the Bill's inception in 1996, a number of clauses have been dropped from the Bill following objections that have been taken on board and carefully considered by the promoters.
It was thought at one point that the Bill could deal with issues such as prostitutes' cards in London telephone boxes and laws relating to alcohol licensing and the licensing of buskers. In short, the Bill could simply have been summarised as the "sex, drugs and rock and roll" Bill, which would have been, had I been in a position to sponsor it, the summit of my parliamentary career. Alas,


the provisions concerning cards in telephone boxes never came to pass, although the Government will soon introduce proposals on that.
The provisions that remain deal with parking, public health, licensing, busking, bus lane offences and some miscellaneous matters. I will go through them in the order in which they appear in the Bill.
Part II deals with parking. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, except in certain areas such as the Whitehall security area and red routes, the London boroughs exercise powers of parking enforcement and control. The councils have already added to their parking powers by virtue of the London Local Authorities Act 1995.
The parking provisions in part II include provisions enabling the councils to serve penalty charge notices on offenders on the basis of evidence provided by cameras; enabling them to serve penalty charge notices where a parking attendant has been prevented from doing so; enabling the service of penalty charge notices to take place by fax or e-mail; and giving the councils powers of entry into vehicles that have been impounded where they contain things that may cause danger. There are a number of other technical provisions.
Part III deals with public health. It enhances the powers of councils' environmental health departments by extending various parts of the existing statutory waste collection regime. It also enables the local authorities to require owners of certain private courtyards and, if necessary, adjoining owners to keep the area clear of refuse.
In the main, the provisions of part IV are technical and consist of a number of amendments to the existing statutory licensing regime in subject areas such as public entertainment, cinemas and theatres.
Part V is concerned with the licensing of buskers. As some of my hon. Friends have raised concerns about part V, I shall spend a few minutes explaining the thinking behind it. First, I should point out that the Bill does not in any way seek to abolish busking in London. As a great fan of busking, I am pleased that that is the case. In fact, I think that the Bill will enhance the ability of buskers to perform and the opportunity for their music and entertainment to be enjoyed by Londoners, while dealing with a small area of nuisance. Part V enables each council to introduce a licensing regime to control busking on the highway and on open spaces controlled by them. The Bill does not, therefore, apply to the London underground, for which separate provision is, I believe, being made.
It should be noted that there are safeguards in the Bill governing the circumstances under which the councils may apply part V. Clause 33 provides that the council may pass a resolution if it wishes to apply the licensing regime to any part of its area. The crucial safeguard is contained in subsection (2), which provides:
The council shall not pass a resolution under this section in respect of any part of their area unless they have reason to believe that
there is a problem as a result of busking, including

(a) undue interference with or inconvenience to or risk to safety of persons using a street
(b) nuisance to the occupiers of property in or in the vicinity of a street in that part of their area.


The clause goes on to provide that the council must publicise the passing of a resolution by advertising in a local newspaper. Therefore, the council must have reason to believe that a problem is being caused by buskers in the first place. No doubt the receipt of complaints from local residents and businesses will play a large part in the council's thinking.
The second important point to note is that councils can target certain areas and apply the licensing regime to those areas. Westminster city council has said that there are at present only two areas where there is sufficient concern to adopt the licensing provisions: Leicester square and certain parts of Covent Garden.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will a local authority's decision to designate an area as a problem area, thus requiring the licensing regime for buskers, be reviewed at a future date?

Ms Buck: If the provisions are not applied properly and are not based on a genuine complaint or concern about nuisance, it will be possible to take the local authority to court and to challenge the decision. That is the bottom line, but no doubt local authorities will want to keep the situation under general review. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether the legislation contains other provisions, but there is that legal provision as a bottom line safeguard.
Evidence was given to the Select Committee by officers from Westminster city council and from the council of the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames about the number of complaints that have been received. There are more than 900 a year in Westminster-there are residents in Leicester square and in a large number of properties in Covent Garden. Thoroughfares such as Leicester square can become extremely crowded, and the problem is often exacerbated by the presence of buskers, and more so by their audiences.
It is important to note that in areas where part V does not apply—that is, the majority of areas—a licence will not be required for busking. That does not mean that buskers outside the licensing area can make as much noise as they like, because they will still be subject to the general law on nuisance and obstruction of the highway.

Mr. John McDonnell: If there is already legislation in force that enables local authorities and others to take action against noise nuisance, why is the Bill required?

Ms Buck: The difficulty is enforcement. The powers exist, but there are complications with regard to enforcement, which the provisions of the Bill will make easier. It will reduce the pressure on local authorities.

Mr. McDonnell: Could my hon. Friend describe those complications?

Ms Buck: I was coming to that. Part of the problem is that local authorities will have to serve an abatement notice on the person responsible for the noise, and later on prosecute the same person for a breach of the abatement notice in exactly the same location. That is impractical and difficult for a local authority to implement. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.
Two buskers in particular—Mike Kay and Jeremy Helm—have opposed the Bill and continue to oppose it. Both petitioned against the Bill. They deposited their petition outside the time limits imposed by Standing Orders, but the Select Committee on Standing Orders allowed it to stand. Once their petition was allowed to stand, it gave Mr. Kay and Mr. Helm the right to appear before a Select Committee, which they did using their performing names of, respectively, Bongo Mike and Extremely Frank Jeremy.
The Select Committee sat for over a day and examined in detail the promoters' case in favour of part V and the two petitioners' case against the Bill. The Select Committee decided that the Bill should be amended in favour of the petitioners to tighten up the wording on the circumstances under which the council can decide whether to apply part V to one of its areas, and the way in which the councils advertise meetings at which they resolve to make individual streets subject to the licensing requirements.
It should perhaps be noted that no other petitions were presented against the Bill by buskers, and there appears to have been no other adverse comment made by buskers about the Bill. In fact, Westminster city council has received a petition signed by a number of buskers supporting the provisions of the Bill.
Part V should not be seen as an attempt by the councils to ban busking. They recognise that buskers contribute to the environment and wish to encourage them. Part V is merely an attempt to control some of the problems that are caused by a few buskers in specific areas.
Part VI contains a few miscellaneous clauses that cannot be categorised in parts I to V, and includes provisions amending the current law on dangerous structures and the service of certain notices under the Highways Act 1980. Local authorities whose area includes royal parks will be able to make a charge to the Crown for any advice given on health and safety and crowd control measures required for open air concerts.
The Bill also contains amendments to certain provisions of the London Local Authorities Act 1995, which provide councils with the power to enforce bus lane controls. For the past year, four London boroughs and the City of London have been using CCTV cameras to enforce bus lane offences as part of a pilot project. However, it has very recently become apparent that the existing legislation does not make it clear who should pay a penalty charge notice when the owner and the driver of the vehicle are not the same person. Any motorist who has already paid his ticket has admitted his liability and no refund will be made.
However, given that ambiguity, any motorist who from now on challenges his liability will automatically win his case. In order to resolve the problem, the main thrust of the amendments in the Bill is to ensure that the owner of the vehicle is liable for a bus lane infringement, not the driver.

Mr. Robert Syms: Am I to understand that if the 50,000 people in London who have been given tickets that they have paid applied, they could get the fine paid back by the local authority?

Ms Buck: That is not the situation. An offence has clearly been committed, and people have accepted

liability by paying. The problem is that local authorities do not have the enforcement powers under current legislation to deal with people who dispute their liability to pay. I hope that the amendment will close that loophole, which arose from a drafting error, and will clarify the situation.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Buck: I have almost finished, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davey: I want to support what the hon. Lady said in reply to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). Surely the motorists were admitting guilt when they paid their fine. Does she agree that Conservative Councillor Daniel Moylan, the vice-chairman of the Association of London Government transport and environment committee, was misleading people and being irresponsible when he suggested that councils should not have been able to collect these fines?

Ms Buck: Yes, I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is slightly perverse for a member of the Conservative party to endorse the actions of people who park illegally in bus lanes. All of us have a common interest in ensuring that the bus lane system operates properly, and that those people who are clearly in breach of the law have to face the penalties available under the legislation.
I urge the House to support the Bill, which the London boroughs and the Association of London Government believe is in the interests of London and Londoners. The Bill has been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny by both Houses. It first commenced its parliamentary stages in 1996, and I ask that it now be passed.

Mr. McDonnell: I shall be relatively brief. A number of hon. Members have blocked this Bill in the past, but they are on other parliamentary duties this evening—I mention my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen).
Anxieties were caused by the part of the Bill that refers to busking. However, I shall first deal with the issue of bus lanes. I feel culpable, as I was the secretary of the Association of London Authorities during that period, and then the chief executive of the Association of London Government. In mitigation, I must point out that when the legislation was proposed in 1996 I proposed that the ALG, and not the London borough of Westminster, should lead on it. Unfortunately, the leaders of the London boroughs defeated me, and Westminster led. If it had been the ALG, I am sure that we would not be in this mess, but that is an aside.
I want to deal with some of the detail of the legislation as regards busking. I shall not vote against the Bill, but some hon. Members want a message to be sent to the local authorities to ensure that they are not over-zealous in the prosecution of this legislation, so that we do not undermine people's basic human right to sing in the street.
I am interested in the detail of the legislation, especially clause 32, which exempts
music performed as an incident of a religious meeting, procession or service.
I take it that that is the Salvation Army clause. Does that mean that if a busker is singing "Abide with me" he or she will not be prosecuted? If it relates to demonstrations of a processional nature, such as the May day rallies of the London Labour party and the trade union movement, when music is performed and donations are collected for various striking causes, I hope that they will also be exempted under the legislation.
How is the existence of "a nuisance" to be determined under the legislation? I am not sure that previous private legislation can guide us on that. What type of evidence will have to be collected to establish the existence of a nuisance? Clause 35 provides not only that a council may license a person, but that it may impose
such terms and conditions and…such restrictions as may be so specified.
Obviously, those impositions may relate to the nature of "a nuisance". However, is it reasonable to impose terms, conditions and restrictions in relation to, for example, the nature of the music? Is clause 35 the Des O'Connor clause? Can we have busking without Des O'Connor? If that is the Bill's effect, we may well support it as we have never done before.
Clause 36 states that there will be a fee to cover administrative and other costs. How will that fee be determined? Will it be decided in a vote of a particular committee or of the full council? Will it be checked for reasonableness by someone who is independent of the local authority?
Clause 37 provides that the applicant can be refused a licence if he is
reasonably regarded as not being a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
In other licensing legislation, such as that regulating the sale of alcohol, "a fit and proper person" is a clearly defined term.

Ms Buck: The licensing regime would permit such a person quite freely to perform outside the licensed area, provided that he or she did not fall foul of other provisions such as those prohibiting obstruction of pavements. The regime would therefore not place undue restrictions on people in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes.

Mr. McDonnell: The legislation would enable the local authority not only to define the area, but to say that, within that area, it will not grant a licence to a particular person whom it believes to be not fit and proper.
I appreciate the need for that type of provision in the regulation of activities such as the sale of alcohol. Such a provision is entirely understandable in that case, because alcohol is a dangerous substance that could be distributed widely by those who are not fit and proper people and who are seeking to attain dubious objectives. But who is not a fit and proper person to play the tuba? Does such an instrument become a dangerous implement in the hands of some people, but not in the hands of others?
Perhaps we need to address the issue of how we define a fit and proper person, especially as we may be setting a precedent. The issue of the definition of "nuisance" is a thread running through the Bill, and I believe that it could be setting us up for future legal action.
I resent another intrusion on people's basic human rights. I accept that the Bill, as amended today, will be passed. However, I am also sure that it will result in an appeal to the magistrates courts and, subsequently, the Crown court. I believe that we are establishing a costly bureaucratic procedure to deal with a matter about which there has been only a limited number of complaints.
What worries me most is that we shall be handing over to a police constable, an officer of the council or even a contractor the opportunity to halt someone who is playing a musical instrument, to arrest him, and, if he continues playing, to take his musical instrument. In various designated licensed parts of London, we are about to see battles involving officers and contractors wrestling instruments from buskers. There will be the turbulence of the trombone in some parts of central London, and the battle of the bass guitar in others. Do we really envisage the legislation resulting in physical force being used to rip instruments from the hands of buskers?
Perhaps we shall hear of a police constable appearing in the witness box and explaining that, "As I was proceeding in a northerly direction through Leicester square, I happened to hear the tune of a trombone. I immediately arrested it." The legislation will make the situation even worse than that. If the arrested busker cannot pay the fine, the instrument gets it. The instrument will be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. Subsequently, the instrument will either be melted down or sent away for a period of detention, possibly—I would probably support this—at a school in the London borough of Hillingdon, perhaps in my constituency.
I simply feel that the Bill goes a step too far in extending a bureaucratic procedure to deal with a fairly natural activity. Although I shall not be voting against the Bill, I believe that the London boroughs will have to use it with a relatively light hand. As previous London authorities legislation may have been used to the disadvantage of individual Londoners, I think we need to send that message to the boroughs very clearly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock would be concerned if I did not make the point that the Bill is another piece of private legislation that has not been certified by a Minister as complying with the Human Rights Act 1998. Parliamentary procedure provides that private legislation does not require such a statement. I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to say, as many hon. Members have said before, that this type of private legislation should be fully subject to the provisions of the 1998 Act and that it should require that statement.

Mr. Davey: I welcome the vast majority of the Bill's provisions, which I believe will assist in the daily workings of London's local authorities. It will help to ensure that London's local authorities can do their job—as parking authorities, street-cleaning authorities and licensing authorities—without being impeded by legal loopholes.
The Bill will assist London's local authorities in many ways. It will enable local authorities to use remote cameras for parking enforcement. We are all aware that,


in these days of tough budgets for local authorities, parking wardens and certainly police officers cannot be everywhere to ensure the enforcement of parking regulations. It has become increasingly difficult to ensure the enforcement of regulations meant to deter those who park illegally, hinder proper traffic flow and make residents' lives a misery. CCTV cameras seem to be a very sensible way of applying modern technology to a very modern problem, and I very much welcome that provision.
The Bill will also enable local authority contractors or employees to issue penalty charge notices by post if they have been unable to affix a notice to the vehicle. Parking attendants are often faced with various obstacles in performing their duties. Although parking offences may seem to be a relatively minor civil matter, it is ludicrous that parking attendants should not have an alternative way of issuing notices to those who perpetrate them. It is a sensible provision.
The Bill's provisions on bus lanes are particularly welcome. Like the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), I spent many happy hours as a member of the Standing Committee considering the Greater London Authority Act 1999, where we debated many transport issues.

Mr. McDonnell: Happy hours?

Mr. Davey: For me, listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), those were particularly happy hours. His insightful analysis of London local government, of the need for improvement in London government and of the Bill's proposals on London government made them happy hours indeed.
When we were having those discussions, we very much focused on transport and on the legislation's provision for a new body entitled Transport for London. That is now established and working. Its main responsibilities at the moment—before the signing of the public-private partnership contracts, after which the responsibility for the London underground will be transferred to it—are various highways and the operation of London buses. One of the major problems that has faced London buses for many years has been the enforcement of bus lanes. It seems ludicrous to many people who have fought long and hard to improve transport in the capital that the recent case has prevented bus lanes from taking on their strategic importance in the life of this city. Bus lanes can encourage people back on to buses by making them a reliable and fast means of transport.
I welcome the fact that amendment No. 12 was passed without opposition, as will those who run Transport for London. Without that amendment, much of the work that they are about to carry out would be severely hindered. I had thought, before I read the remarks of a Conservative councillor on the ALG, that that important amendment had all-party support and I am pleased that the Conservatives in the House did not oppose it. That would have gone against the spirit of the cross-party consensus and the need to get London moving. The amendment even had the support of an Evening Standard editorial, so it really is a consensus measure.
The Bill contains many commendable powers. However, I regret that one matter was not dealt with in the Bill and I hope that the Government will think carefully about it, because it relates—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can give clear guidance to the hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading he may talk only about what is in the Bill.

Mr. Davey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feared that you might bring me to order on that point.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned his concerns about the licensing of buskers. When I heard about the new power, I shared many of his concerns. The royal borough of Kingston, along with the London borough of Westminster, asked for the change, so I inquired why it had made those representations. I am reliably informed that serious problems have been experienced in parts of Kingston town centre, which is a busy shopping area. There are large crowds on Saturday mornings outside the Bentalls centre in Claremont street and, occasionally, buskers get in the way. That is not to say that busking is not welcomed by people who shop in Kingston town centre. I have often seen large crowds gathering round both musical and performing arts buskers, enjoying the entertainment. That is welcome because it creates a happy, relaxed atmosphere in the centre of Kingston. [Interruption.] I shall not pursue the sedentary comment by the Whip, tempting though that might be.
Although some buskers abuse their right to perform freely on the streets, such cases are few and far between.

Mr. McDonnell: I agree that that concern exists, but other powers are available for use in such cases, including those dealing with obstruction. If too much leeway is given in legislation—for example, as it was in legislation on the distribution of leaflets some years ago—it can be misused. Several of my constituents were arrested three months ago for handing out animal rights leaflets under legislation rushed through the House some years ago.

Mr. Davey: I share some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Some amendments have improved the legislation, especially following the Select Committee hearings mentioned by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I hope that London local authorities will think carefully before they use the new powers and will keep any use under regular review. If buskers know that the powers exist and that local authorities can step in, the Bill might assist self-regulation. I hope so.
I also hope that London authorities do not set up large bureaucracies to go over the top in using the powers. I hesitate to develop this train of thought, but I can imagine local authorities holding events to determine the quality of buskers. If local authorities decide to license certain areas for certain times, they will have to restrict the number of licences, and one hopes that they will not set up casting arrangements to decide the distribution of the busking licences.
I hope that London local authorities will use the powers sparingly, because busking is an honourable tradition, which is enjoyed by many people. Traditionally, people have had the right to entertain their fellow citizens on the streets. Arts budgets are being squeezed, but buskers,


of their own free will, go out and entertain. It would be regrettable if the Bill were to reduce busking. That is not its intention, although we need to ensure that busking is undertaken responsibly. We shall see whether the measure helps to solve the problems experienced in Kingston.
I shall share with the House how the Bill will work in the royal borough of Kingston. We have been fortunate to benefit from the establishment of a town centre manager and Kingston Town Centre Ltd., which work to improve the quality of the town centre for shoppers, businesses and those who work in Kingston. Dr. Julie Grail, the chief executive of the organisation, works closely in partnership with the retailers—the organisation is funded by many of them—and the local authority. She supports the Bill as she feels that it could serve a useful purpose, and she does not want to see it being abused by the local authority. She has worked closely with the retailers and the local authority, so she is well placed to give a practical view of the need for the powers.
I could deal with many other issues, but I hope that at least one more Member wishes to speak.
Let me make one final point, about street cleaning. The Bill gives London local authorities stronger powers to require alleyways to be kept clean. That has proved a great problem in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, which the Deputy Prime Minister described as a leafy borough. It is true that it contains many trees, that gulleys are blocked when they shed their leaves, and that the streets need to be cleaned at such times; but the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong to imply that, because the borough is leafy, it is homogeneously wealthy. I have made that point many times. Anyway, given that cars are often parked on the streets for a long time, cleansing contractors may not be able to ensure that all the leaves are swept up and all the gulleys are cleared.
The measure is welcome, as I can attest on the basis of practical experience—again, in Kingston. In the summer of 1999, three freak storms in Kingston gave rise to a lot of flooding. It was an example of "microclimate": the flood was intensive in one area, but not in adjacent areas. It was a remarkable meteorological event, and the fact that it occurred three times was particularly remarkable. The event is relevant to the issue of street cleaning. Because some of the gulleys in the borough had not been cleaned for some time, the flood was severely aggravated and many people's homes and property were damaged as a result.
The powers conferred by the Bill will enable bodies such as the borough to ensure that that does not happen again. I have been given 250 pieces of case work, and 500 people have written to me about the floods that they experienced that summer. I think that those people will be particularly pleased about the new powers, and will feel reassured about Kingston council's ability, under the Bill, to fulfil its role—a role that it takes seriously—in keeping alleyways free of leaves and excess rubbish.
Let me say again how much the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We believe that it will strengthen local government in the capital and help the 32 London boroughs to do the job that their citizens elect them to do. The tasks involved are often basic, everyday tasks: regulating parking, regulating street cleaning, licensing, and so on. They could be described as mundane. However, when I knock on doors in my constituency—in Chessington, New Malden, Tolworth, Berrylands, Surbiton, Kingston and Worcester Park—I find that people raise those basic issues. Members of Parliament often expect people to raise issues involving the health service, the police or education, but in my experience of knocking on doors, most people want to talk about parking and street cleaning.
I welcome the powers in the Bill, and hope that it will be given a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Moor Lane School

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Edward Davey: I want to tell the House about a school that the Office for Standards in Education said was not improving, but the result of whose standard assessment tests—published yesterday—show remarkable and significant improvement.
I want to tell the House about a school to which Ofsted inspectors did serious damage after a visit lasting just five hours, but whose science SATs have improved by 40 per cent. in the past year: 85 per cent. of pupils in year 6 have attained level 4 or above, as opposed to 61 per cent. In that context, it is at or above the national average. In the past year alone there has been a 7 per cent. improvement in English SATs results: the proportion of pupils attaining level 4 or above has risen from 67 per cent. to 72 per cent.
Many schools throughout the country will not have agreed with the report and recommendations of their Ofsted inspectors, but in most cases it is likely that the inspectors' judgments were right. I will not contend tonight that there is anything wrong with a system of independent external inspection that seeks to raise standards in our schools; such a system is vital, and will inevitably mean that some schools are deemed to need special measures. But it is another matter to argue that the current Ofsted system is perfect and cannot be improved, and that Ofsted always gets it right. I believe that Ofsted must be reformed. There is mounting evidence for that, not least from last summer's report by our own Select Committee on Education and Employment, which investigated Ofsted in detail.
It is because I have more, and recent, evidence of the need for Ofsted reform that I requested the debate. As I hope to show, the inspectors got it wrong in the case of the recent Ofsted visit to Moor Lane junior school in Chessington. Perhaps worse, the process by which they got it wrong was itself seriously flawed. What was the result of Ofsted's mistakes? A shattering of staff morale, leading to the resignation of the six teachers who were not already due to leave.
The school will weather the storm. We are all determined that it will. It has great support from the community and from parents. The local education authority, rated by Ofsted itself as a "well-run authority", has already stepped in to protect the children's education from next September. I want to place on record my total confidence in the seconded head teacher, Mr. Tim Rome; I also want to reassure parents of my belief that Moor Lane was, is and will be a good school to which they can entrust their children's education. The purpose of the debate, however, is to share the lessons of the Moor Lane experience with the Minister, and those lessons suggest to me that a number of specific reforms are needed of Ofsted and its processes. I hope that, as a result of this debate, Ofsted will be seen to have been held to account for its mistaken processes, and that the school can put what has happened behind it.
As the Minister will know, there is a history to the case. It begins with the first Ofsted report, in 1995—a very positive report. The inspector said:
Moor Lane School has many very good features and offers an outstanding atmosphere for learning. The school has worked hard to improve its provision and is beginning to reap the rewards.
The Minister may be concerned to learn that the chief inspector, Mr. Chris Woodhead, said recently on television that Moor Lane should have pulled its socks up following the 1995 report. He did not appear to know that his own inspectors had been very positive about the school. Although the 1995 report identified areas needing improvement, as most reports do, it was largely very complimentary. It does Ofsted's reputation no good when the chief inspector is so ill informed, and shoots from the hip.
The trouble really started with the April 1999 Ofsted inspection. It originally recommended special measures for the school, but its conclusion was contested both by the local education authority and by the school. Her Majesty's inspectorate upheld the appeal, so the report recorded only "serious weaknesses". Moreover, Ofsted also partially upheld the school's view that the April 1999 inspection had not been conducted properly. At the time, I wrote to the chief inspector to express my concern that the original Ofsted report had got it wrong and had undermined the school. I only wish that I had pursued the matter even further at the time.
It is not surprising that the inspectorate and senior managers in Ofsted were worried by the 1999 report. Two extracts from the report show its inconsistencies. Paragraph 82 stated:
On the basis of all the available evidence, including teachers' planning and the work in pupils' books, the overall quality of teaching in relation to the provision for English is unsatisfactory.
Paragraph 83 stated that
the overall quality of teaching in literacy hour sessions is good. It is at least satisfactory in nine-tenths of lessons and is good or better in almost half the lessons.
That is rather inconsistent.
What happened after the report was published and the appeals against it had been heard? The school and the LEA got cracking and got down to work. Action plans were drawn up, and close monitoring was instituted. Kingston's chief inspector is Patrick Leeson, an excellent and highly regarded specialist, and he took a hands-on approach. A new chair of governors, John Heaman—a councillor and a former chair of education in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames—was elected. Mr. Heaman is the former head of a teacher training school, with 28 years of experience in training teachers. In all, the LEA and the school took the April 1999 report—the one that said that the school had serious weaknesses—very seriously.
The House should know that the LEA believed that the school was making good progress after the April 1999 inspection. Neither it nor the school was complacent. It believed that the school still had some genuine weaknesses, but all parties considered that major improvements had been achieved.
The December 1999 LEA report on the school judged that 86 per cent. of the teaching was satisfactory. In March 2000, the LEA judged that more than 30 per cent. of the teaching was good, with weaker teachers performing satisfactorily. In terms of attainment, the LEA inspectors


reported that there was evidence of improvement in English, mathematics and science in years 5 and 6. Yesterday's SATs results appear to bear out that view.
What did the Ofsted inspectors find in their May progress report visit? Officially, we do not know, as the written report has yet to be finalised and published. However, we know the main findings, as the inspectors gave an oral feedback to staff directly after the visit that precipitated the resignations. The inspectors' overall judgment was that the school required special measures.
The detail of some of the inspectors' oral feedback is interesting, as a report from the LEA to the Kingston council cabinet shows. The feedback suggested that there had been some improvement in standards, but that the school's attainments remained too low. That was not borne out by the SATs results. It revealed that 16 lessons were observed, of which seven were good, four satisfactory, and five unsatisfactory. It continued:
All 12 class teachers were observed at least once and some twice during one afternoon and one morning.
That is hardly a rigorous process.
The report went on:
In unsatisfactory lessons: teacher expectations were too low, tasks were not suitably differentiated, and pace was slow.
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the school has above-average special educational needs. Its special education unit—Skylab—achieves tremendous results. The school does not have low expectations of its pupils. As to task differentiation, it is hard to comment at this juncture, but it is clear from the oral feedback that special measures were not justified.
Only five lessons were found to be unsatisfactory. The finding that special measures were needed contradicted the views of the LEA inspectors, the SATs examiners, and parents. Three obvious questions arise in connection with the Ofsted visit and report. They suggest that there is a need to reform the process by which the snapshot inspections—the brief progress reports—are made.
First, why did Ofsted not wait until after the SATs results were available and use them to cross-check its findings? That would have required a wait of only a few weeks, and would have saved Ofsted from getting egg on its face. If SATs results are expected in a short time, the Ofsted process ought to require that they be taken into account.
Secondly, why did Ofsted not refer back to the LEA, which had been working closely with the school in a concentrated and focused way for months? The Minister might say that Ofsted is not supposed to refer to the LEA about an inspection, as inspections are supposed to be independent and external. That is true, yet we are talking not about a full-blown inspection but about an extremely brief visit. It is possible that the Ofsted inspectors found five unsatisfactory lessons, but surely they should have sought corroborative data before pressing the nuclear button of "special measures". Such data would have backed up the limited information that they acquired for their findings.
I know that the Minister is not as anti-LEA as the leader of the Conservative party, and I am sure that she believes that LEAs have a role with regard to inspection. The staff at Kingston LEA knew the school very well.

More significantly, from Ofsted's point of view, the LEA had worked well with Ofsted in the past. Kingston education authority has gone out of its way—and will do so again—to co-operate with Ofsted, and to work constructively with its inspectors. It is an LEA that Ofsted can trust.
As I said earlier, an Ofsted inspection of Kingston LEA a few years ago found it to be well run and one of the best in the country. Improvements have been made since then, so why did the inspectors not talk to the education authority? I strongly believe that Ofsted must reform the way in which it works. When inspectors make a brief visit and monitor lessons for only five hours, Ofsted ought to refer to other sources for corroboration.
My third question has to do with statistics. In a full-blown inspection, many lessons are monitored so that a representative sample can be used in a well-informed report. However, in an inspection that lasts only a morning and afternoon, only a tiny sampling exercise is possible. If the inspectors were familiar with statistics theory, they did not apply simple mathematics to their techniques and conclusions. It is remarkable that they should call for special measures after finding unsatisfactory five of the 16 lessons that they monitored.
Of course there are practical constraints on the time that can be spent on progress report visits, and on the number of lessons that can be monitored. However, should that not suggest that inspectors apply much greater caution and recognise the limitations of the inspection process? I hope that inspectors exercise rather more caution in future, especially with regard to brief progress reports.
There is a fourth reform that I should like to be made to the Ofsted process. Inspectors need to be more sensitive to the morale of teachers. It serves no purpose if Ofsted undermines morale. It certainly does not help children's education, or lead to higher standards.
The teachers at Moor Lane school had been working very hard, none more so than head teacher Jane Wright. She and her staff are dedicated, committed and caring, and they have the confidence of the community. Jane Wright announced her retirement before the Ofsted visit, and I believe that she can retire with her head held high. However, I do not consider that Ofsted recognised her work, or the genuine achievements revealed in yesterday's SATs results.
I am delighted that last summer's report by the Select Committee on Education and Employment suggested that Ofsted should do more when reporting inspection results, and that it should have a more "professional dialogue" with staff. I would go further, and say that Ofsted should have a more developmental role in terms of its links with, and feedback to, schools. It should not merely light the blue touchpaper and walk away; it must get involved with schools in post-report work. That would earn it greater respect and acknowledgement among the teaching profession.
I have concentrated on the direct lessons from Moor Lane school's experience with Ofsted. In the time that remains, I want to look briefly at some wider reforms that I consider should be made. To do so, I shall lean heavily on the work of the Select Committee.
The first reform is about accountability. I have received many letters and e-mails from parents who are dismayed with Ofsted and the way that it has undermined the school. Invariably, they ask to whom Ofsted is


accountable. From its report, it is clear that the Select Committee believes that Ofsted is not accountable enough.
Although it is difficult to hold Ofsted and its individual inspectors to account for every individual report, the overall performance—the quality of inspectors, the processes involved in compiling reports, and so on—is a legitimate matter for the House. The Government should turn their mind to the question of how the inspectors can be inspected.
A key question for many people at Moor Lane—and, I am sure, at many other schools—is: who is guarding the guardians? Recommendations 49 to 59 of the Select Committee report contain many suggestions, such as an annual debate, preceded by evidence from Her Majesty's chief inspector to the Select Committee, annual meetings between the Select Committee and the chief inspector, confirmatory hearings for the appointment of the chief inspector, and quinquennial reviews of Ofsted. Those all seem sensible proposals. They would keep Ofsted in check and ensure that it was inspected, and that it improved.
I hope that the Minister does not think this is too controversial, but I wish to put on record my concern at the way in which Her Majesty's chief inspector reacted to the inspection report and the press accounts of it. Mr. Woodhead clearly did not do his homework well enough; he made inaccurate remarks about the history of the school. He has allowed the flawed system of progress reports to continue. In this case, the system has hit Moor Lane, but it may hit other schools if it continues. I think that Chris Woodhead should apologise to Moor Lane school, and I hope that when he reads this debate, he will feel that that is the right thing to do.
I wish to end on a note of praise for the school—praise for the teachers, the head teacher, the governors, parents and children for the way in which they have withstood a great deal of pressure following the April 1999 report. They have also had the media spotlight on them, and they have conducted themselves very well, in a mature way. They are determined to pull together with the local education authority and the Ofsted inspectors, when they arrive in September, to make sure that the quality of education at Moor Lane school continues to improve from what is already quite a high level.
This is a good school—the SATs results yesterday showed that. I pay tribute to all those in the school and the local education authority who made that possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing this Adjournment debate on an issue that is obviously important to his constituency and, as he has pointed out, important in terms of the Government's objective of raising standards for all our children.
I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the Government's commitment to inspection as part of their strategy for raising standards in schools. Inspection provides a periodic external check on each school, helping to tackle under-performance and develop plans for improvement. Parents value inspection reports highly because of the inspectors' independence.
I speak with some understanding of Ofsted, having been on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection before I was elected to Parliament. Observation of lessons is not designed to criticise teachers unjustly. Evaluation of the quality and impact of teaching is central to inspection. The evaluation of teaching is fundamental to the quality of education provided to pupils.
Moor Lane junior school was inspected by registered inspectors in October 1995, and the resulting report clearly set out the key issues for action. As the hon. Gentleman said, points of action always come out of Ofsted reports. However, in April 1999, registered inspectors visited again and found that, in their view, very little action had been taken on the key issues. Making use of the safeguard provided in law, Her Majesty's inspectors gathered additional evidence, and the need for special measures was not corroborated, although they confirmed that the school had serious weaknesses.
The school lodged a complaint about the conduct of the April 1999 inspection, which was partially upheld by Ofsted. Ofsted agreed that there had been an overemphasis, in drafting, on the negative statements in the report but, importantly, that did not result in any change in the report. It was made quite clear to the school and all concerned that serious weaknesses existed.
Inspectors judged that at Moor Lane junior school one third of the teaching was less than satisfactory. Standards were below average in English, maths and science. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not tolerate low standards for our children, and the Government certainly do not. Children at this school deserve a better deal.
In the monitoring visit in May 2000, Her Majesty's inspectors decided that the school had made no improvement and was failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education. We cannot allow a school that has been told that it has serious weaknesses to make no improvements. Action must be taken.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was possible to make such judgments on the basis of a brief inspection. In fact, the final monitoring visit in May 2000 was subsequent to the two previous visits—it was part of a programme of visits. Also, the criteria for deciding whether a school requires special measures are specified in law—that is, that the school is failing, or is likely to fail, to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education. That definition is explained in Ofsted's framework for school inspections and the accompanying guidance handbook for inspectors.
Whatever the type of inspection, the judgment that a school requires special measures is made only when there is an adequate evidence base to support it. In addition, the decision that a school requires special measures is a matter for Her Majesty's inspectors' professional judgment. Ministers, local education authorities—even very well-intentioned constituency Members of Parliament—cannot, and should not, intervene. The most important thing is that the standard of education at Moor Lane junior school and others in special measures improves as quickly as possible and that that improvement is sustainable. We must not fail these pupils.
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about improvements in key stage 2 results this year. However, the 1999 Moor Lane key stage 2 results were for English 67 per cent. at level 4, for science 61 per cent. and for maths 52 per cent. That compares with a national average


of 75 per cent. for English, 84 per cent. for science and 73 per cent. for maths in similar schools. I was pleased to hear that it looks as though this year's results are an improvement in English and science, and I hope that the maths results are equally good.
Moor Lane junior must now embed and sustain that improvement.

Mr. Davey: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that the yesterday's SATs results showed a large improvement, particularly in science? That must surely bring into question the findings of the Ofsted visit in May.

Jacqui Smith: As I pointed out, it is a professional decision for inspectors, based on the programme of visits that I have outlined, to determine whether a school should go into special measures. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that the task of raising standards for our children should not and cannot be put off because people do not believe that there is sufficient evidence. Decisions have to be taken, and they have to be taken in a way that will support improvements in schools.
We recognise that inspections cause pressure, and we are working with the chief inspector to do what we can to keep that to a minimum. For example, we have shortened the notice period before inspections to avoid the lengthy build-up of pressure that teachers have told us is damaging. Ofsted's guidance for inspectors contains firm advice on the need to minimise stress for teachers.
To respond to the hon. Gentleman's concern that changes and improvements be made in Ofsted's operation, there will be increased feedback to teachers and head teachers about teaching quality, together with improved training for inspectors, new powers for Her Majesty's chief inspector to remove incompetent inspectors and strengthened complaints procedures, including final review by an external adjudicator.
It is not the fault of Ofsted, however, that a school finds that it is failing. In this case, it is the failure effectively to remedy the weaknesses identified by inspectors over the past five years that has resulted in the situation in which the school now finds itself. Many hundreds of primary and junior schools in England have been judged by inspectors to have serious weaknesses, or to be in need of special measures. None of them will have welcomed those judgments, but they have mostly tackled the problems and turned their schools around.
This is the first time that a large proportion of staff have refused to accept the judgment and resigned. It is regrettable that many of them did so before seeing the detail in the report. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it has yet to be published. I understand that the head and deputy resigned before the inspection took place, and that Kingston upon Thames local education authority acted fast to ensure that a new head teacher and deputy head were appointed for this September. What matters now is that Kingston LEA and the governing body are able to appoint a new team of talented and dedicated professionals to meet the challenges ahead and to make Moor Lane junior school a better place for both pupils and staff. That is already under way; three senior teachers have been appointed and further interviews will be held next week.
It is clear that to challenge and support our schools in raising standards, the Government need to engage in a range of measures. Such measures do not only involve Ofsted, although more than 1,000 schools have been given early warning that standards are slipping by being put into the serious weaknesses category by Ofsted. The vast majority—nearly 90 per cent.—act immediately to put things right. Those that show no improvement after a year, when HMI or additional inspectors pay a monitoring visit, are rightly placed under special measures.
Each school is responsible for providing the high standards that will allow its pupils to achieve their full potential. LEAs play a vital role, through challenge and support, in helping schools to raise standards. However, schools are responsible for their own improvement, although LEAs play a critical role in supporting governing bodies and head teachers in their efforts.
In the case of Moor Lane junior school, Kingston LEA provided much support for the school. It appointed additional governors when the school was put into the serious weakness category; and gave financial advice in response to the criticisms in the April 1999 report that procedures for financial planning were poor and that the school provided unsatisfactory value for money. The LEA provided monitoring of and challenge to target setting. However, the LEA and the school must work together on such matters and it is judged that the effect of the extra resources has yet to have a sustained impact on standards in the school.

Mr. Davey: I share the Minister's praise of the LEA. It behaved well both before and after the events. However, surely that shows that, as Ofsted carried out a short inspection and could monitor only 16 lessons, it should have referred back to the LEA before giving the verbal briefing that special measures would be recommended.

Jacqui Smith: There is a conflict between my statement as to the importance of an independent inspection regime and what the hon. Gentleman asks for. We need to recognise the independence of Ofsted. That is part of its value, and one of the reasons that parents value its inspections.
It is important to recognise that Ofsted plays only a part in what we need to do to raise standards. For example, LEAs and schools have access to the standards fund school improvement grant. The grant will support expenditure of more than £290 million in 2000–01, enabling schools and LEAs to support activity to raise standards.
Our policy to tackle failing schools is working. The number of such schools is falling and the average turnaround speed is faster; it stands at 18 months for schools coming under special measures since May 1997. That is down from 25 months for schools coming under special measures between 1993 and April 1997. Recent figures show that more than one third of primary and special schools turn around in 18 months or less. We are considering ways of strengthening our approach—for example, by increasing the rigour with which we challenge LEAs to identify and intervene in schools at risk at an early stage.
We are passionate about improving the education of pupils in under-performing schools, and have taken decisive action to tackle failure in our schools. Independent inspection is a key part of that. However, other Government action is crucial. We know that many schools are striving against the odds to improve—often with success. However, that success must be true for all schools if we are to ensure that all young people, whatever their background, can fulfil their potential.
I give my best wishes to the parents, the new staff and the governors of Moor Lane junior school for a sustained improvement in standards. That is what the hon. Gentleman and the Government want, not only for the children of Moor Lane junior school, but for all our children.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eight o'clock.